William Scott Ingram v. Commonwealth of Virginia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “court,” used in the context of a statute governing involuntary treatment orders under Code § 37.2- 1101(A), means a court sitting without a jury
• explaining that “[d]eclared legally insane nearly twenty years ago, Ingram will likely be the subject of future treatment petitions” that would “introduce exactly the same jury issue”
• acknowledging the doctrine, but recognizing that it “should be used sparingly” and in “exceptional situations”
• “Because the due process protections afforded under the Constitution of Virginia are co-extensive with those of the federal constitution, the same analysis will apply to both.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “As a general rule, ‘the proponent of an issue bears the burden of persuasion on the factual premises for applying the rule.’” (quoting Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 8 (2006))
• “‘Advisory opinions represent an attenuate exercise of judicial power,’ ‘one which we traditionally avoid in all but the most extenuating circumstances.’” (first quoting Elliott, 48 Va. App. at 553; then quoting Pilson v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 442, 446 (2008))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).