Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 1-5 (2026)
Effect of such repeal as to persons in office
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
All persons who, at the time when such repeal takes effect, shall hold any office under any of the acts hereby repealed, shall continue to hold the same according to the tenure thereof, except those offices which may have been abolished, and those as to which a different provision is made by this Code.
Code 1919, § 6571; R. P. 1948, § 1-5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Bennett v. Commonwealth, 533 S.E.2d 22 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
Bennett v. Commonwealth, 533 S.E.2d 22 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). “If, however, the trial court believed Officer Sheppard, the motion to dismiss should have been denied.”
Cousins v. Commonwealth, 693 S.E.2d 283 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). “Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 1-5, at 30 (6th ed. 2003) (noting that “[w]here relevance, as distinguished from competence, [of proffered evidence] is involved,” and “the relevance .”
United States v. Imngren, 914 F. Supp. 1326 (E.D. Va. 1995). “Army Regulation 190-5, Section 1-5 identifies the following "Program Objectives”: (a) Safe and efficient movement of personnel and vehicles; (b) Reduction of traffic deaths, injuries, and property damage from traffic accidents; (c) Integration of installation safety,…”
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010). “581 (Roanoke 2001); 14B Michie’s Jurisprudence, Profert and Oyer, §§ 1-5. The motion provides a defendant the opportunity to submit to the Court the question of whether a plaintiff suing for breach of contract has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted: When a…”
Ragone v. Waldvogel, Poe, & Cronk Real Est. Grp., Inc., 54 Va. Cir. 581 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2001). “The remaining documents for which oyer is craved are merely evidentiary material.”
Bennett v. Commonwealth, 520 S.E.2d 845 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). “2 required dismissal of the charge. If, however, the trial court believed Officer Sheppard, the motion to dismiss should have been denied.”
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kinzer, 142 S.E.2d 514 (Va. 1965). “(Section 1-5 of the Staunton Code provides a criminal penalty for violation of Sections 13-43 and 13-44, the whistle-blowing and bell-ringing ordinances.”
Resk v. Roanoke Cnty., 73 Va. Cir. 272 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2007). “436 (2000); and 14B Michie’s Jurisprudence, Profert and Oyer, §§ 1-5 (2006)). One purpose of granting oyer is to allow the Court to view all material parts of a record so that an objective, intelligent construction of the record can be made without being limited by the…”
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kinzer, 142 S.E.2d 514 (Va. 1965). “(Section 1-5 of the Staunton Code provides a criminal penalty for violation of Sections 13-43 and 13-44, the whistle-blowing and bell-ringing ordinances.”
Koleris v. S.S. Good Hope, 241 F. Supp. 967 (E.D. Va. 1965). “See Baer, Admiralty Law of the Supreme Court § 1-5 (1963). Even if the Court were to take the principle that acts of officers or crew members can, in some instances, render a vessel unseaworthy, and apply it to the facts at bar, recovery would still be precluded, as the Supreme…”
Brusseau v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (DHS), No. 1:20-cv-01364 (E.D. Va. July 27, 2021). “1] at §§ 1-5, 12-13. In 2011, Brusseau was assigned to an HSI money laundering and fraud investigation targeting two defense contractors, Unitrans International, Inc.”
Whitlock v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-01409 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2025). “15-185 § 1-5. Neither of these two provisions limit when the Secretary may direct action.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.