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 2 courts 2003–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kromer v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“In order to convict a person of illegal possession of contraband, ‘proof of actual possession is not required; proof of constructive possession will suffice.’” Kromer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 812, 819 (2005) (quoting Maye v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 463, 483 (2004)). 2024Code § 18.2-374.1(A) defines “child pornography” as “sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor.” To convict a defendant of possession of child pornography, “the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual ‘knowingly possesse[d] sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less than 18 - 16 - years.’” Terlecki, 65 Va. App. at 20 (alteration in original) (quoting Kromer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 812, 817 (2005)). | 2 | 2 |
Maye v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025“In order to convict a person of illegal possession of contraband, ‘proof of actual possession is not required; proof of constructive possession will suffice.’” Kromer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 812, 819 (2005) (quoting Maye v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 463, 483 (2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Thomas Terlecki v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2024Code § 18.2-374.1(A) defines “child pornography” as “sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor.” To convict a defendant of possession of child pornography, “the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual ‘knowingly possesse[d] sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less than 18 - 16 - years.’” Terlecki, 65 Va. App. at 20 (alteration in original) (quoting Kromer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 812, 817 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Joseph Alfonso Papol v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen2 sentences2023Eckard was charged under Code § 18.2-374.1:1 which states in subsection (A): “Any person who knowingly possesses child pornography is guilty of a Class 6 felony.” Subsection (B) provides, “Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of subsection A is guilty of a Class 5 felony.” Binding precedent from this Court states that, for the purposes of subsection (B), it does “not matter that the images were downloaded from the Internet during a single download episode any more than it should matter if they all arrived by mail in a single envelope.” Papol v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 150, 2023Consequently, “[w]hen multiple images are downloaded on a single occasion, one of those images invariably constitutes the first image possessed, while all the others qualify as second or subsequent images possessed.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Walter Delany Booker, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen1 sentence2023Often, such agreements include reducing charges alleging a second or subsequent violation to a “first offense.” See, e.g., Booker v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 323, 327-28 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education of Madison County v. Fowlergreen2 sentences2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the 2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewin v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the 2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Branscome v. Cunduff
green
2 sentences2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the 2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wallerstein v. Brander
green
2 sentences2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the 2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ficklen v. City of Danville
green
2 sentences2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the 2010Code § 2.2-4026 of the VAPA then provides that "[a]ny person affected by and claiming the unlawfulness of any regulation ... shall have a right to the direct review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action against the agency or its officers or agents in the manner provided by the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia...." (Emphasis added.) [3] Accordingly, Hollowell requested in his petition that the circuit court: (1) find that the new regulations were unlawful; (2) find the regulations unenforceable; (3) enter a temporary injunction against enforcement of the regulations during the | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rose v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2003Rose, 37 Va. at 736-37, 561 S.E.2d at 50 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.