Yap v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the presumption “allows only a permissive inference that the fact finder is free to reject”
• reviewing the application of Code § 18.2-269 in the context of a conviction for driving under the influence
• finding rebuttable presumption in Code § 18.2-269 “allows a permissive inference that the fact finder is free to reject,” and “shifts the burden of producing 5 Code § 18.2-323.1(B
• “Keeping in mind well-settled principles of judicial review, we decline . . . to offer an advisory opinion on . . . ‘hypothetical situations.’” (quoting Boyd v. County of Henrico, 42 Va. App. 495, 520, 592 S.E.2d 768, 780 (2004) (en banc))
• “[T]he ultimate fact that the Commonwealth must prove is the alcohol content at the time of driving. [T]he statutory language of Code § 18.2-266(i
• “[T]he ultimate fact that the Commonwealth must prove is the alcohol content at the time of driving. [T]he statutory language of Code § 18.2 — 266(i

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).