Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – A > After Discovered Evidence Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

After Discovered Evidence Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

 This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of After Discovered Evidence and the related topic of personal injury.  For more information about after discovered evidence issues see the page on Wikipedia.

After Discovered Evidence-Cases

2010 Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566, 692 S.E.2d 226.
The after discovered evidence requirements have not been satisfied where witnesses that held the evidence had been identified prior to the hearing in question and it was only after the hearing that their depositions were taken and information was discovered. That is not after discovered evidence.

1983 Taylor v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 224 Va. 562, 299 S.E.2d 340.
New trial improperly granted where alleged after discovered evidence had already been in defendant’s possession and award, although seemingly high ($25,000 for injured shoulder), did not shock conscience.

1967 Fulcher v. Whitlow, 208 Va. 34, 155 S.E.2d 362.
To justify new trial evidence must: (1) appear to have been discovered since trial; (2) through reasonable diligence could not have been discovered prior to trial; (3) not merely cumulative; and (4) be of such nature as to produce opposite result.

1966 Smith v. Virginia Transit Co., 206 Va. 951, 147 S.E.2d 110.
After discovered evidence impeaching defendant was not sufficient to justify new trial.

1962 Doe v. Brown, 203 Va. 508, 125 S.E.2d 159.
Necessary requirements set forth.

1958 Rountree v. Rountree, 200 Va. 57, 104 S.E.2d 42.
In order to justify new trial for after discovered evidence: (1) evidence must have been discovered since trial; (2) it must be such that in another trial, it ought to produce opposite results on its merits; (3) it must be evidence that could not have been discovered before trial by use of due diligence and such as can be produced at another trial; and (4) it must not be merely cumulative.

1957 Virginia Linen Supply v. Allen, 198 Va. 700, 96 S.E.2d 86.
To qualify, after-discovered evidence must meet the following requirements: (1) evidence could not have been obtained before trial by using reasonable diligence; and (2) evidence must go to merits of case and not simply to impeaching witness.

1955 Independent Cab Ass’n v. LaTouche, 197 Va. 367, 89 S.E.2d 320.
Plaintiff denied previous injuries at trial. After trial, defendant’s counsel received anonymous tip of previous injury. Defendant entitled to new trial. Grounds for new trial set forth.

1947 Dickens v. Goode, 186 Va. 388, 42 S.E.2d 863.
Defendant’s after-discovered evidence did not merit new trial since no showing that it could not have been offered at original trial. Requirements as to after discovered evidence are set forth.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

After Discovered Evidence Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation