simple inquiry in Virginia

2024See Massenburg, 298 Va. at 218; City of Richmond v. Long, 58 Va. (17 Gratt.) 375 (1867); Edwards, 237 Va. at 171 (finding ambulance services “akin to the provision of hospital services[] . . . because it is difficult to imagine anything more directly tied to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens”); Bialk v. City of Hampton, 242 Va. 56, 58 (1991) (holding that clearing streets for vital public services after a large snowstorm was a governmental act); Ashbury v. Norfolk, 152 Va. 278 (1929) (deeming garbage collection a governmental function because it concerned the preservation of publ

2019Edwards v. City of Portsmouth, 237 Va. 167, 172 (1989).

2020It arises from the simple principle that one person may not “enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.” Rinehart v. Pirkey, 126 Va. 346, 351 (1919).

2020It arises from the simple principle that one person may not “enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.” Rinehart v. Pirkey, 126 Va. 346, 351 (1919).

2024The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine The Commonwealth’s first argument reduces to the simple claim that, because Corcoran had been lawfully arrested, and the search of Corcoran’s wallet was contemporaneous with that arrest, “Officer Nash was permitted to search the wallet as a search incident to arrest.” “Under the Fourth Amendment, ‘[w]hen officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.’” Joyce v. Commonweal

2024See Massenburg, 298 Va. at 218; City of Richmond v. Long, 58 Va. (17 Gratt.) 375 (1867); Edwards, 237 Va. at 171 (finding ambulance services “akin to the provision of hospital services[] . . . because it is difficult to imagine anything more directly tied to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens”); Bialk v. City of Hampton, 242 Va. 56, 58 (1991) (holding that clearing streets for vital public services after a large snowstorm was a governmental act); Ashbury v. Norfolk, 152 Va. 278 (1929) (deeming garbage collection a governmental function because it concerned the preservation of publ

2024“In determining whether a municipality is engaged in a governmental or proprietary function, this Court has rejected a simple inquiry into whether private entities also perform the same service.” Massenburg, 298 Va. at 218. 26 See, e .g., Gambrell v. City of Norfolk, 267 Va. 353, 359 (2004) (holding that firefighting falls under a municipality’s power and duty to provide emergency services “for the general safety and welfare of the citizenry”); Trans., Inc., 219 Va. at 1006 (holding a municipality “immune from liability for negligence in failing to repair a malfunctioning [traffic] signal” bec

2024The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine The Commonwealth’s first argument reduces to the simple claim that, because Corcoran had been lawfully arrested, and the search of Corcoran’s wallet was contemporaneous with that arrest, “Officer Nash was permitted to search the wallet as a search incident to arrest.” “Under the Fourth Amendment, ‘[w]hen officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.’” Joyce v. Commonweal

2024“In determining whether a municipality is engaged in a governmental or proprietary function, this Court has rejected a simple inquiry into whether private entities also perform the same service.” Massenburg, 298 Va. at 218. 26 See, e .g., Gambrell v. City of Norfolk, 267 Va. 353, 359 (2004) (holding that firefighting falls under a municipality’s power and duty to provide emergency services “for the general safety and welfare of the citizenry”); Trans., Inc., 219 Va. at 1006 (holding a municipality “immune from liability for negligence in failing to repair a malfunctioning [traffic] signal” bec

2023“An appeal bond provides assurances that any judgment that may be rendered on appeal, if perfected, will be satisfied.” Mahoney v. Mahoney, 34 Va. App. 63, 67 (2000) (en banc).

2023(Emphasis added). - 10 - Code § 16.1-107 clearly requires that the appealing party post a bond, with the simple requirement that the amount be approved by the general district court judge or clerk.7 The language of subsection (D) reveals the purpose of the appeal bond: “the bond shall be conditioned for the performance and satisfaction of such judgment or order as may be entered against such party on appeal, and for the payment of all costs and damages which may be awarded against him in the appellate court.” In other words, appeal bonds are “designed to protect the judgment rights of successf

2019Furniture Co. v. Doane, 230 Va. 39, 42 (1985); see Jeffreys v. Uninsured Employer’s Fund, ___ Va. ___, ___ (Feb. 14, 2019) (“We frequently apply this simple principle [of liberally construing the Act] but guard against doing so simplistically.” (footnote omitted)).

2001“A finding of waiver of counsel cannot be made on the basis of a simple inquiry into past events: ‘the question of waiver [is] not a question of historical facts, but one which ... requires “application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.” ’ ” Clements, 713 F.2d at 1035 (citations omitted).

2000"Murder . . . by willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . is murder of the first degree." Code § 18.2-32. "'To premeditate means to adopt a specific intent to kill, and that is what distinguishes first and second degree murder.'" Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 480, 485 , 384 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 696, 700 , 261 S.E.2d 550, 553 (1980)).

2000"Murder . . . by willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . is murder of the first degree." Code § 18.2-32. "'To premeditate means to adopt a specific intent to kill, and that is what distinguishes first and second degree murder.'" Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 480, 485 , 384 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 696, 700 , 261 S.E.2d 550, 553 (1980)).

2000"Murder . . . by willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . is murder of the first degree." Code § 18.2-32. "'To premeditate means to adopt a specific intent to kill, and that is what distinguishes first and second degree murder.'" Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 480, 485 , 384 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 696, 700 , 261 S.E.2d 550, 553 (1980)).

2000"Murder . . . by willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . is murder of the first degree." Code § 18.2-32. "'To premeditate means to adopt a specific intent to kill, and that is what distinguishes first and second degree murder.'" Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 480, 485 , 384 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 696, 700 , 261 S.E.2d 550, 553 (1980)).