Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adkins v. Commonwealth (1)
- Age of Majority (1)
- Baggett v. Bullitt (1)
- Brady v. United States (1)
- Commonwealth v. Perrow (1)
-
- Commonwealth v. Willcox (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Dombrowski v. Pfister (1)
- Ex parte Young (1)
- Hague v. CIO (1)
- Incorporation by Reference (1)
- North Carolina v. Pearce (1)
- Perez v. Ledesma (1)
- Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co (1)
- Self-Proving Will (1)
- Seymour v. Commonwealth (1)
- Small Funds Statute (1)
- The Disclaimer Act (1)
- Totten Trust (1)
- Uniform Gift to Minors (1)
- United States v. Jackson (1)
- United States v. Oppenheimer (1)
- Virginia Rules of Criminal Practice and Procedure (1)
- Younger v. Harris (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Defendant In Jeopardy- Is Virginia Unique?
The Defendant In Jeopardy- Is Virginia Unique?
University of Richmond Law Review
The constitutional and statutory safeguards against a person being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense are well known both to laymen and lawyers alike. What has gone largely unnoticed by the Virginia courts is the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata to the area of criminal law. It is the purpose of this comment to make the reader aware of the doctrine of res judicata as it applies to criminal cases and to attempt to clear up the confusion which has developed in this area of Virginia law.
Recent Legislation, J. Rodney Johnson
Recent Legislation, J. Rodney Johnson
University of Richmond Law Review
The 1972 session of the General Assembly was especially active in the areas of wills, trusts, and estates. Much of this legislation deals with fine points not affecting the average lawyer in his practice. However, the following items of legislation should be of general interest to the attorney whose practice involves probate work or estate planning, even though he does not hold himself out as a specialist in these areas.
An Introduction To Virginia's New Rules Of Criminal Practice And Procedure, Murray J. Janus
An Introduction To Virginia's New Rules Of Criminal Practice And Procedure, Murray J. Janus
University of Richmond Law Review
On January 1, 1972 the new Virginia Rules of Criminal Practice and Procedure became effective, some three and one-half years after the President of the Virginia State Bar Association appointed a Special Committee to draft these proposed Rules. Mr. Justice Thomas C. Gordon, Jr., was appointed Chairman of the Committee in June of 1968. Peter C. Manson, Professor of Criminal Law at the University ,of.Virginia,acted as consultant for the Committee and he made available special student assistants who were invaluable with their research. In addition, two judges of courts of record with criminal jurisdiction, the Honorable Edmund P. Simpkins, Jr., …
Plea Bargaining: The Case For Reform
Plea Bargaining: The Case For Reform
University of Richmond Law Review
Although plea bargaining has not been openly recognized or sanctioned by most courts, it has become quite widespread and effective. Due to this lack of formal recognition, no uniform plea bargaining procedure has been developed, but generally, an accused is encouraged to plead guilty in exchange for some concession, the most familiar being a promise by the prosecutor to ask the court for leniency. Such concession is far from being the only "reward" offered by the state; indeed, if it were the only one, the practice would not have flourished as it has. Depending upon the particular laws of the …
Federal Court Intervention In Pending State Criminal Prosecutions- The Significance Of Younger V. Harris
University of Richmond Law Review
The recent United States Supreme Court decision of Younger v. Harris along with its companion cases represent the most significant development in the area of federal-state court relations since the Court decided Dombrowski v. Pfister in 1965. Dombrowski created grave doubts over the continued validity of the long established public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings. Civil libertarians were quick to seize upon the broad assertions in that case as support for their efforts toward expanding the concept of federal court intervention in state criminal prosecutions. Though the Court was given the opportunity to reconcile the conflicting …