Botkin v. Commonwealth

7 Citing cases

  1. Mad Props. v. Cnty. of Augusta

    No. 1381-23-3 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024)

    Further, the Supreme Court of Virginia has found that "'[a]ny' is defined, in part, as 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind'; 'one or more indiscriminately from all those of a kind'; or 'one that is selected without restriction or limitation of choice.'" Botkin v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 309, 314-15 (2018) (quoting Any, Webster's Third New International Dictionary (2002)). Similarly, "'[i]n interpreting [ordinance] language, we . . . appl[y] the time-honored principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius,'

  2. Jennings v. Commonwealth

    No. 1407-22-3 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The Supreme Court has often stated, "The primary purpose of statutory interpretation 'is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent.'" Botkin v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 309, 314 (2018) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 538, 542 (2012)).

  3. Harris v. Wash. &Lee Univ.

    82 Va. App. 175 (Va. Ct. App. 2024)

    Also, " ‘[a]ny’ is defined, in part, as ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind’; ‘one or more indiscriminately from all those of a kind’; or ‘one that is selected without restriction or limitation of choice.’ " Botkin v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 309, 314, 819 S.E.2d 652 (2018) (quoting Any, Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (2002)). [16, 17] Finally, "[t]he maxim of noscitur a sociis provides that the meaning of doubtful words in a statute may be determined by reference to their association with related words and phrases."

  4. Latham v. Commonwealth

    No. 1088-23-1 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024)

    Today, while affirming the decision of the trial court in accord with the well-established principles of judicial deference, the majority fails to reckon with the equally important principle that the decisions of this Court, insofar as they require statutory interpretation, must "ascertain and give effect to legislative intent." Botkin v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 309, 314 (2018) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 538, 542 (2012)).

  5. Allen v. Commonwealth

    No. 1014-22-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2024)

    Hall v. Commonwealth, 69 Va.App. 437, 444 (2018) (quoting Fullwood v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 531, 539 (2010)). We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Botkin v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 309, 314 (2018). "Two offenses will be considered the same when (1) the two offenses are identical, (2) the former offense is lesser included in the subsequent offense, or (3) the subsequent offense is lesser included in the former offense."

  6. Weisenbeck v. Commonwealth

    No. 1277-22-1 (Va. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2023)

    We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, seeking "to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent" derived "from the words employed in the statute." Botkin v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 309, 314 (2018) (internal citations omitted).

  7. Butler v. Stegmaier

    77 Va. App. 115 (Va. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 12 times
    Declining to adopt good faith and probable cause exception to enforcement of no-contest clauses as matter of public policy because "it is the role of the [Virginia] General Assembly to evaluate and adopt or discard particular public policy changes as the elected representatives of Virginians directly accountable to the citizenry"

    In interpreting statutes, this Court seeks "to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent," and it "determines [that] intent from the words employed in the statute." Botkin v. Commonwealth , 296 Va. 309, 314, 819 S.E.2d 652 (2018) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth , 284 Va. 538, 542, 733 S.E.2d 638 (2012) ). When the words of the statute are "plain and unambiguous, [the Court is] bound by the plain meaning of that statutory language."