Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2022 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Swann (ORDER)green1 sentence2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015). -7- doubt, and we affirm the conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. | 1 | 1 |
Acey v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2019The language in Code § 18.2-308.1:4(A) is ambiguous on this point because it “can be understood in more than one way.” See id. (quoting Boynton v. Kilgore, 271 Va. 220 , 227 n.8 (2006)); see also Acey, 29 Va. App. at 250 (analyzing the gravamen of the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boynton v. Kilgore
green
1 sentence2019The language in Code § 18.2-308.1:4(A) is ambiguous on this point because it “can be understood in more than one way.” See id. (quoting Boynton v. Kilgore, 271 Va. 220 , 227 n.8 (2006)); see also Acey, 29 Va. App. at 250 (analyzing the gravamen of the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Atkins v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2014In Atkins , appellant was charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. 57 Va.App. at 7 , 698 S.E.2d at 252 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Atkins v. Com.
green
1 sentence2014In Atkins , appellant was charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. 57 Va.App. at 7 , 698 S.E.2d at 252 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Parsons v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2013In Parsons , this Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a defendant’s conviction for attempting to “purchase” a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2(A)(ii). 5 32 Va.App. at 583 , 529 S.E.2d at 814 . *269 The defendant in Parsons had “selected the weapon he wished to purchase and completed and signed the Virginia Criminal History Check Form’ ... required of prospective purchasers of firearms.” Id. at 579, 529 S.E.2d at 812 . 2013In Parsons , this Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a defendant’s conviction for attempting to “purchase” a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2(A)(ii). 5 32 Va.App. at 583 , 529 S.E.2d at 814 . *269 The defendant in Parsons had “selected the weapon he wished to purchase and completed and signed the Virginia Criminal History Check Form’ ... required of prospective purchasers of firearms.” Id. at 579, 529 S.E.2d at 812 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Herring v. United States
green
2 sentences2012After a hearing on appellant’s suppression motion, the trial court denied the motion relying on Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695 , 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009): I think this is controlled by Herring . 2012After a hearing on appellant’s suppression motion, the trial court denied the motion relying on Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695 , 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009): I think this is controlled by Herring . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Armstrong v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2010This Court, in a decision affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, reiterated that the legislative intent behind Code § 18.2-53.1, unlike Code § 18.2-308.2, is to proscribe the use of any instrument that reasonably produces fear of physical harm to an individual. 2 Armstrong I, 36 Va.App. at 318 n. 4, 549 S.E.2d at 643 n. 4. 2010This Court, in a decision affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, reiterated that the legislative intent behind Code § 18.2-53.1, unlike Code § 18.2-308.2, is to proscribe the use of any instrument that reasonably produces fear of physical harm to an individual. 2 Armstrong I, 36 Va.App. at 318 n. 4, 549 S.E.2d at 643 n. 4. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.