This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 7 -
A general issue plea is “a general denial of the plaintiff’s whole declaration or an attack
upon some fact the plaintiff would be required to prove in order to prevail on the merits. It had
the effect of challenging the plaintiff to go to trial and prove his case.” Stockbridge v. Gemini
Air Cargo, Inc., 269 Va. 609, 617-18 (2005). General issue pleas are no longer permitted in
Virginia. Rule 3:8(a).
A special plea in bar “is a defensive pleading that reduces the litigation to a single issue.
. . . [I]f proven, [it] creates a bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.” 1 Friend, supra, § 8.01-4.
A special plea “does not point out the legal insufficiency of allegations but rather demonstrates
their irrelevance because of some other dispositive point—usually some affirmative defense[.]”
Cal. Condo. Ass’n v. Peterson, 301 Va. 14, 20 (2022) (quoting Our Lady of Peace, Inc. v.
Morgan, 297 Va. 832, 847 n.4 (2019)). “[G]eneral pleas were limited to attacking the matters
pleaded by the opponent. By contrast, special pleas involve the introduction of new material by
the pleader.” 1 Friend, supra, § 8.01-4.
Here, appellees filed pleas in bar based on the intervening and superseding findings of
probable cause throughout the prosecution. To support these motions, appellees submitted
records from the special prosecutor, JDR court, grand jury, and trial court.7 The appellees did
not limit their pleas in bar to whether probable cause existed only at the time when Officer Riley
swore out the warrants. Instead, they introduced new supporting exhibits and evidence to argue
that the subsequent determinations of probable cause bar the malicious prosecution claim. After
a review of the evidence presented, the circuit court noted three separate intervening causes
7 On appeal, Cline argues that the circuit court erred by admitting these exhibits because
they were not relevant nor material. Cline, however, does not include authority or argument on
why this would be the case. According to Rule 5A:20(e), the opening brief must contain “the
argument (including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of error.” The
effect of this omission is waiver. Bartley v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 740, 744 (2017)
(“Unsupported assertions of error ‘do not merit appellate consideration.’” (quoting Jones v.
Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 730, 734 (2008))). Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)