Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 Va. App. 59 - Zamani v. Commonwealth

26 Va. App. 59 - Zamani v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2019

20 state decisions

120199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Turner v. Commonwealth · 9 Va. App. 152 - Virginia Real Estate Board v. Clay · Albemarle County v. Marshall, Clerk · 3 Va. App. 531 - Crews v. Commonwealth · 11 Va. App. 115 - COM., DEPT. OF MINES v. May Bros., Inc.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he General Assembly intended to make fully available to a person convicted of a misdemeanor . . . both the right to seek review by a de novo appeal and the right, within sixty days, to petition to reopen the case in the district court. Neither [§ 16.1-133 nor § 16.1-133.1] contains language indicating that the exercise of one right limits or precludes the exercise of the other. Thus, the two statutes must be construed in a manner that affords a convicted person the full opportunity to employ both post-trial procedures to the extent that the exercise of one does not conflict with the exercise of the other. [ 3 ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““‘[T]he primary objective of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent.’ ” In interpreting statutes, “courts should give the fullest possible effect to the legislative intent embodied in the entire statutory enactment.” To do so, “[t]wo statutes which are closely interrelated must be read and construed together and effect given to all their provisions.” Potentially conflicting statutes should be harmonized to give force and effect to each.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “WTien a statute is ambiguous, we are called upon to interpret the meaning of those provisions and to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. In doing so, we may avail ourselves of extrinsic evidence and the rules of statutory construction. We also examine [this code section] in the context of other closely related statutes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.