clear statement rule (Virginia) · Go Syfert
← Virginia issues

clear statement rule in Virginia

7 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2025 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Jenningsgreen
ariz · 1986 · cited in 2 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022L.J. 565 , 569, 590-92, 600, 602 (2021). - 10 - intended a strict-liability offense.5 At least four States have recognized a mens rea presumption, though without mentioning a clear-statement requirement.6 Notably, the Model Penal Code specifies that a statute may be interpreted to create a strict-liability offense only “insofar as a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for such offenses or with respect to any material element thereof plainly appears.”7 5 See Ala. Code § 13A-2-4(b) (“A statute defining a crime, unless clearly indicating a legislative intent to impose strict liabilit

2022L.J. 565 , 569, 590-92, 600, 602 (2021). - 10 - intended a strict-liability offense.5 At least four States have recognized a mens rea presumption, though without mentioning a clear-statement requirement.6 Notably, the Model Penal Code specifies that a statute may be interpreted to create a strict-liability offense only “insofar as a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for such offenses or with respect to any material element thereof plainly appears.”7 5 See Ala. Code § 13A-2-4(b) (“A statute defining a crime, unless clearly indicating a legislative intent to impose strict liabilit

22
Afzall ex rel. Afzall v. Com.green
va · 2007 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025Similar to the clear-statement rule, our Supreme Court has held that a “waiver of sovereign immunity will not be implied from general statutory language but must be explicitly and expressly stated in the statute.” Montalla, LLC. v. Commonwealth, 303 Va. 150 , 165 (2024) (quoting All. to Save the Mattaponi, 270 Va. at 455); see also Azfall v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 226 , 230 (2007) (same); Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va. v. Carter, 267 Va. 242, 244-45 (2004) (same).

11
Gregory v. Ashcroftgreen
scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470 (1991) (explaining that the plain statement rule is a “rule of statutory construction to be applied where statutory intent is ambiguous”).

11
Rector & Visitors of the University v. Cartergreen
va · 2004 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025Similar to the clear-statement rule, our Supreme Court has held that a “waiver of sovereign immunity will not be implied from general statutory language but must be explicitly and expressly stated in the statute.” Montalla, LLC. v. Commonwealth, 303 Va. 150 , 165 (2024) (quoting All. to Save the Mattaponi, 270 Va. at 455); see also Azfall v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 226 , 230 (2007) (same); Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va. v. Carter, 267 Va. 242, 244-45 (2004) (same).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Super Fresh Food Markets of Virginia, Inc. v. Ruffin green
va · 2002
1 sentence

2025Thus, unless a new order entered within Rule 1:1(a)’s 21-day period “clearly and expressly modifies, vacates, or suspends the final judgment,” Super Fresh, 263 Va. at 563 , the final order remains final for purposes of noting an appeal.

12025–2025
Bradford v. Shine green
fla · 1869
1 sentence

1945Jur., Constitutional Law, sec. 27, the author makes this clear statement of the principle: “ * * * People who, acting under a proper resolution of the legislature, vote in favor of calling a constitutional convention are presumed to ratify the terms of the legislative call, which thereby becomes the basis of the authority delegated (by the people) to the convention. # * * ” Other interesting and supporting cases are: Bradford v. Shine, 13 Fla. 393 , 7 Am.

11945–1945
Clay v. Butler green
va · 1922
2 sentences

1931In the case of Clay v. Butler, 132 Va. 464 , 112 S. E. 697, 699 , we find this clear statement of the principle: “In Starke v. Littlepage, 4 Rand. (25 Va.) 368, Judge Green, in discussing the maxim ‘in pari delicto,’ said: ‘But this rule applies only in cases where the refusal of the courts to aid either party frustrates the object of the transaction and takes away the temptation to engage in contracts contra bonos mores, or violating the policy of the laws.

1931In the case of Clay v. Butler, 132 Va. 464 , 112 S. E. 697, 699 , we find this clear statement of the principle: “In Starke v. Littlepage, 4 Rand. (25 Va.) 368, Judge Green, in discussing the maxim ‘in pari delicto,’ said: ‘But this rule applies only in cases where the refusal of the courts to aid either party frustrates the object of the transaction and takes away the temptation to engage in contracts contra bonos mores, or violating the policy of the laws.

11931–1931
Manitowoc Malting Co. v. Milwaukee Malting Co. green
wis · 1903
1 sentence

1921Rival manufacturers may lawfully compete for the patronage of the public in the quality and price of their goods, in the beauty and tastefulness of their enclosing packages, in the extent of their advertising, and in the employment of agents, but they have no right, by imitative devices, to beguile the public into buying their wares under the impression they are buying those of their rivals.” This from the late Chief Justice Winslow, of Wisconsin, in Manitowoc Malting Co. v. Milwaukee Malting Co., 119 Wis. 546 , 97 N. W. 389 , is also a clear statement of the rule: “Unfair competition in trade

11921–1921

Where else courts name it

CA 20 (1900–2024) KY 13 (1935–2025) TX 12 (1927–2025) OR 10 (1926–2018) NC 8 (1904–1943) KS 8 (1918–2005) VA 7 (1921–2025) WA 7 (1917–2025) AL 6 (1918–1987) UT 6 (1922–2018) FL 6 (1913–2001) TN 6 (1898–2023) NY 5 (1890–2004) GA 4 (1933–2015) AR 4 (1918–1975) SC 4 (1929–1940) MA 4 (1941–2022) MN 4 (1906–1959) PA 4 (1906–1938) WI 3 (1957–2014) OH 3 (1930–2019) MO 3 (1903–1999) WV 3 (1937–1943) MS 3 (1930–2012) CO 3 (1921–2012) IL 3 (1913–1989) NM 2 (1994–2021) CT 2 (2012–2019) AZ 2 (1952–1984) ID 2 (1929–1992) NJ 2 (1951–1991) MD 2 (1974–1999) MI 2 (1917–2022) NE 2 (1922–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check