Barson v. Com.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the General Assembly is presumed to be aware of appellate decisions and “[i]ts acquiescence is deemed to be approval”
• observing that when the Court of Appeals has used words in a particular way in the past, “[t]he legislature is presumed to be aware of this usage” and “[i]ts acquiescence is deemed to be approval”
• legislature intended Miller definition to apply to term “obscene” in harassment statute, and it was therefore reversible error to instruct jury with dictionary definition
• “[W]hen the legislature uses the same term in separate statutes, that term has the same meaning in each unless the General Assembly indicates to the contrary.” (quoting Jenkins v. Mehra, 281 Va. 37, 48 (2011))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).