DOCSLIB.ORG

Virginia Practice and Procedure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Virginia Practice and Procedure VIRGINIA PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Part One Professor Kent Sinclair © 2010 T A B L E OF C H A P T E R S VOLUME 1 Chapter 1 – The Virginia System Chapter 2 – Alternatives to Litigation Chapter 3 – Applicable Law & Equitable Principles Chapter 4 – Parties and Claims Chapter 5 – Venue and Forum Non Conveniens Chapter 6 – Service of Process and Personal Jurisdiction Chapter 7 – Default Chapter 8 – Pleadings and Motions Chapter 9 – Joint Tortfeasors – Release & Contribution Chapter 10 – Medical Malpractice Basics VOLUME 2 Chapter 11 – Responsive Pleadings, Counterclaims, Cross-claims and Third Party Practice Chapter 12 – Immunity Doctrines in Virginia Chapter 13 – Summary Judgment Chapter 14 – Sanctions in Virginia Law Chapter 15 – Finality and Relitigation Chapter 16 – Limitation of Actions Chapter 17 – Discovery Chapter 18 – Pretrial Conferences, Management of Case Preparations, and Dormancy Chapter 19 – Nonsuits and the 21-Day Rule Chapter 20 – Jury Trial Rights and Procedures - 1 - VOLUME 1 Chapter 1 -- The Virginia System A. Codes and Rules.........................................................................................................28 Code §8.01-3............................................................................................................30 Rule 3:1……............................................................................................................30 Rules Titles or "Parts"..............................................................................................31 B. Admission to Practice Law........................................................................................33 C. Court Structure in Virginia ......................................................................................33 Trial Courts "of Record": Circuit Courts ...........................................................33 Courts Not "of Record": General District Court..................................................34 Venue and Jurisdiction ..............................................................................34 Subject Matter Jurisdiction........................................................................35 Proceedings in General District Court. .........................................................36 Simplified forms of pleadings ...................................................................36 Venue Notice.............................................................................................37 Pleadings....................................................................................................37 “Appearance” ............................................................................................37 Discovery...................................................................................................37 "Return Day" .............................................................................................38 Removal to Circuit Court. .........................................................................38 Appeal from General District Court...............................................................39 Rehearing Applications in the General District Court...................................40 Conduct of the Appeal in the Circuit Court....................................................41 Finality of General District Court Judgments................................................41 NOTES on Remedies and De Novo Appeal.....................................................41 Court System Diagrams.........................................................................................42 Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court......................................................43 Rochelle v. Rochelle ......................................................................................45 NOTES on the 10 Days to Appeal .............................................................................47 Family Courts Created -- Then Not Funded .......................................................48 Virginia’s Appellate Court System.......................................................................50 The Court of Appeals of Virginia. ..................................................................50 Appeal of Right .........................................................................................50 Appeal by Petition .....................................................................................50 Supreme Court of Virginia ............................................................................50 NOTES on Appeal ..............................................................................................51 Diagram of Appeal Routes – Civil........................................................................52 Diagram of Appeal Routes – Administrative ......................................................53 Thoughts on Appealability in Virginia.................................................................54 - 2 - Chapter 2 --Alternatives to Litigation A. Introduction ...............................................................................................................57 B. Arbitration Basics ......................................................................................................59 McMullin v. Union Land & Mgt. ...........................................................................59 C. Scope of the Agreement to Arbitrate .......................................................................63 Trustees of Asbury United Methodist Church v. Taylor & Parrish ......................63 NOTES on Forming the Agreement to Arbitrate.......................................................68 D. Interpretation and Enforcement of the Arbitration Award; Preclusion and Relitigation ...................................................................................69 Waterfront Marine Constr. v. North End 49ers Sandbridge .......................69 NOTES on Arbitration Awards..................................................................................77 E. Challenges to Arbitration Awards or Arbitrability................................................78 Signal Corp. v. Kean Federal Systems ...................................................................78 Lackman v. Long & Foster Real Estate .................................................................81 Discussion Problem..................................................................................................85 FURTHER NOTES on Arbitration Hearings................................................................86 Is There an Arbitrable Dispute? ...............................................................................86 Amchem Prods . v. Newport News Asbestos Plaintiffs.................................88 Appeal of Arbitration –Related Orders....................................................................93 F. Mediation Under the Virginia "Early Neutral Evaluation" System....................94 Hypotheticals…… .............................................................................................................98 Chapter 3 – Applicable Law & Equitable Principles A. What Law Applies? .................................................................................................100 Buchanan v. Doe...................................................................................................100 B. Claims in a "Newly Mixed" System ......................................................................105 The Single Form of Action – Effect of the Reform .................................................106 Table of Civil Procedure Rules..............................................................................107 Claims at Law or in Equity ....................................................................................111 Peculiarly Equitable Claims ..................................................................................112 Claims (almost always) At Law .............................................................................113 C. Equitable Relief........................................................................................................114 Injunctions .............................................................................................................114 - 3 - Specific performance..............................................................................................115 Reformation............................................................................................................115 Rescission….. .........................................................................................................115 Receivership ..........................................................................................................115 Other Equitable Relief ..........................................................................................116 D. Equitable Defenses and Other Limits on Relief....................................................116 E. Statutes on The Applicable Law.............................................................................117 Code §1-10 The Common Law.............................................................................117 Code §1-11 Acts of Parliament.............................................................................117 F. Case Law on Law & Equity Problems in Virginia................................................117 Wright v. Castles....................................................................................................117 NOTE:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridging the Gap: Addressing the Doctrinal Disparity Between Forum Non Conveniens and Judgment Recognition and Enforcement in Transnational Litigation
    Bridging the Gap: Addressing the Doctrinal Disparity Between Forum Non Conveniens and Judgment Recognition and Enforcement in Transnational Litigation ALEXANDER R. Moss* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 210 1. CURRENT DOCTRINES OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ................................ 214 A. FORUM NON CONVENIENS ............................ 215 1. Introduction . ................................. 215 2. The Adequate Alternative Forum ................. 216 3. Private and Public Interest Factors ................ 217 4. Degree of Deference to Plaintiff's Choice of Forum .... 218 B. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS .................. 220 1. Introduction . ................................. 220 2. The Roots of the Current Doctrine ................ 221 3. Harmonization of Recognition & Enforcement Standards .................................. 223 C. THE DOCTRINAL GAP BETWEEN FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND JUDGMENT RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT .............. 225 II. ISSUES RAISED BY THE CURRENT GAP IN STANDARDS ............ 225 A. INADEQUACY OF THE "ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE FORUM" STANDARD . ...................................... 227 * Georgetown Law, J.D. 2017; Georgetown University, B.S.F.S. 2011. © 2017, Alexander R. Moss. I am extremely thankful to Professor David Stewart for his guidance and insight in helping me develop my topic and improve this Note over the course of the production process. Many thanks are also due to The Georgetown Law Journal's exceptional editors and staff, especially Allie Berkowitch, Spencer McManus, Elizabeth Janicki, Ryan Giannetti, and the Notes Committee, for all of their hard work and thoughtful suggestions along the way. Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful family and friends, who have been with me every step of the way during my law school experience, and without whom none of this would have been possible. 209 210 THE GEORGETOWN LAw JOURNAL [Vol. 106:209 B.
    [Show full text]
  • L'équipe Des Scénaristes De Lost Comme Un Auteur Pluriel Ou Quelques Propositions Méthodologiques Pour Analyser L'auctorialité Des Séries Télévisées
    Lost in serial television authorship : l’équipe des scénaristes de Lost comme un auteur pluriel ou quelques propositions méthodologiques pour analyser l’auctorialité des séries télévisées Quentin Fischer To cite this version: Quentin Fischer. Lost in serial television authorship : l’équipe des scénaristes de Lost comme un auteur pluriel ou quelques propositions méthodologiques pour analyser l’auctorialité des séries télévisées. Sciences de l’Homme et Société. 2017. dumas-02368575 HAL Id: dumas-02368575 https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-02368575 Submitted on 18 Nov 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0 International License UNIVERSITÉ RENNES 2 Master Recherche ELECTRA – CELLAM Lost in serial television authorship : L'équipe des scénaristes de Lost comme un auteur pluriel ou quelques propositions méthodologiques pour analyser l'auctorialité des séries télévisées Mémoire de Recherche Discipline : Littératures comparées Présenté et soutenu par Quentin FISCHER en septembre 2017 Directeurs de recherche : Jean Cléder et Charline Pluvinet 1 « Créer une série, c'est d'abord imaginer son histoire, se réunir avec des auteurs, la coucher sur le papier. Puis accepter de lâcher prise, de la laisser vivre une deuxième vie.
    [Show full text]
  • Bush V. Superior Court (Rains), 10 Cal.App.4Th 1374 (1992)
    Supreme Court, U.S. FILED ( p NOV 272018 1.1 No. k I \ zy OFFICE OF THE CLERK iiiii ORGNAL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RASH B. GHOSH and INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BENGAL BASIN, Petitioners, V. CITY OF BERKELEY, ZACH COWAN, LAURA MCKINNEY, JOAN MACQUARRIE, PATRICK EMMONS, GREG HEIDENRICH, CARLOS ROMO, GREG DANIEL, MANAGEWEST, BENJAMIN MCGREW, KORMAN & NG, INC., MICHAEL KORMAN, MIRIAM NG, ROMAN FAN, ROBERT RICHERSON, KRISTEN DIEDRE RICHERSON, ANDREA RICHERSON, DEBRA A. RICHERSON, AND PRISM TRUST, Re s p0 ii den t S. On Petition For a Writ of Certiorari To The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Rash B. Ghosh Pro Se P. 0. Box 11553 Berkeley, CA 94712 (510) 575-5112 THE QUESTION PRESENTED Ghosh owned two adjacent buildings in Berkeley, and the co- plaintiff, International Institute of Bengal Basin (IIBB) occupied one of them. In a pending lawsuit, petitioners filed a third amended complaint, alleging that newly discovered evidence showed that the newly-named defendants conspired with the other defendants to deprive them of their property and arrange for it to be sold at a below-market price to some of the new. defendants. The trial court sustained demurrers by the defendants, and Ghosh and IIBB sought to appeal. Because Petitioner Ghosh had been found to be a vexatious litigant, he had to make application to the presiding justice of the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, and show that the appeal had merit. He made application, and pointed out numerous (and sometimes obvious) errors the trial court had made in sustaining the demurrer.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ORIGINS of the ACTION of TRESPASS on the CASE ELIZABETH JEAN Dixt
    THE ORIGINS OF THE ACTION OF TRESPASS ON THE CASE ELIZABETH JEAN DIXt \\ITHINT THE last decade the origins of the action of trespass on the case have become a controversial subject arousing interest among lawyers and historians as well as among those more specialized hybrids, legal historians. At the beginning of this century no one questioned the theory of the origins of the action proposed by Ames, Holmes, Holdsworth, Salmond and others.' It was generally believed by these writers that the action of trespass on the case was a direct derivative from the well known in consimili casu clause of Edward I's Statute of 1285, West- minster II, chapter 24. Behind this belief was the support of older writers, Chitty, Reeves, Stephen and Blackstone,2 confirming beyond doubt the relationship between the action of case and Westminster II. In the course of the last thirty years, however, attention has been directed to flaws in the generally accepted theory of the origin of case. The objections were strongly voiced several years ago by Mr. Theodore F. T. Plucknett, who concluded from his study that the background, content and results of the Statute of Westminster II, and particularly of the in consimili casu clause, indicated that the action of case had no connection with the Statute.' There are two sides to the present controversy: one is represented by Mr. Plucknett himself; the other is represented by Sir William Holds- worth4 and his associate at Oxford, Mr. P. A. Landon.5 In support I Ph.D., Yale University, 1936. This article is part of a dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Yale University, June, 1936.
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Tennessee Knoxville an Interview with Ray H. Higgins for the Veteran's Oral History Project Center for the S
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE AN INTERVIEW WITH RAY H. HIGGINS FOR THE VETERAN’S ORAL HISTORY PROJECT CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF WAR AND SOCIETY DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY INTERVIEW BY G. KURT PIEHLER AND ELLEN EBERTS STRAWBERRY PLAINS, TENNESSEE APRIL 11, 2000 TRANSCRIPT BY ELLEN EBERTS REVIEWED BY CINNAMON BROWN MARK BOULTON KURT PIEHLER: This begins an interview with Ray H. Higgins on April 11, 2000 at Strawberry Plains, Tennessee with Kurt Piehler and ... ELLEN EBERTS: Ellen Eberts. PIEHLER: And, I guess, I’d first like to ask you a very basic question: where were you born and when were you born? RAY HIGGINS: I was born at Woodbury, Tennessee, June 18, nineteen and twenty-one. PIEHLER: And your ... parents were married in Woodbury, Tennessee? HIGGINS: Yes, yes they were married in Woodbury. She was from McMinnville, and he’s from Woodbury. PIEHLER: Do you know how your parents met? HIGGINS: Uh, they were neighbors. Uh, this is where I ad lib a little bit and tell you a little more than answering the question. PIEHLER: Please do. HIGGINS: Okay. My mother lost her husband to appendicitis. His name was Jesse Moore. And she had three children. And she lived near ... my father, uh, who was married and lost his wife with four children. Well all, putting them together automatically they had seven children, you see. (Laughter) Well, the grandparents on both sides ... felt sorry for them, I think, having that many children. So the maternal grandfather took ... our mother’s oldest daughter and, for all practical purposes, reared her as their own.
    [Show full text]
  • “Law of Precedent”
    1 Summary of papers written by Judicial Officers on the subje ct: ªLAW OF PRECEDENTº Introduction :- A precedent is a statement of law found in the decision of a superior Court, which decision has to be followed by that court and by the courts inferior to it. Precedent is a previous decision upon which the judges have to follow the past decisions carefully in the cases before them as a guide for all present or future decisions. In other words, `Judicial Precedent' means a judgment of a Court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts, a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. A judicial precedent is a decision of the Court used as a source for future decision making. Meaning :- A precedent is a statement of law found in decision of a Superior Court. Though law making is the work of the legislature, Judges make law through the precedent. 2 Inferior courts must follow such laws. Decisions based on a question of law are precedents. Decisions based on question of facts are not precedents. Judges must follow the binding decisions of Superior or the same court. Following previous binding decisions brings uniformity in decision making, not following would result in confusion. It is well settled that Article 141 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law and not to enact the law, which essentially is the function of the legislature. To declare the law means to interpret the law. This interpretation of law is binding on all the Courts in India.
    [Show full text]
  • A Handbook of Citation Form for Law Clerks at the Appellate Courts of the State of Hawai#I
    A HANDBOOK OF CITATION FORM FOR LAW CLERKS AT THE APPELLATE COURTS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ###I 2008 Edition Hawai #i State Judiciary 417 South King Street Honolulu, HI 96813 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CASES............................................ .................... 2 A. Basic Citation Forms ............................................... 2 1. Hawai ###i Courts ............................................. 2 a. HAWAI #I SUPREME COURT ............................... 2 i. Pre-statehood cases .............................. 2 ii. Official Hawai #i Reports (volumes 1-75) ............. 3 iii. West Publishing Company Volumes (after 75 Haw.) . 3 b. INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ........................ 3 i. Official Hawai #i Appellate Reports (volumes 1-10) . 3 ii. West Publishing Company Volumes (after 10 Haw. App.) .............................................. 3 2. Federal Courts ............................................. 4 a. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ......................... 4 b. UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS ...................... 4 c. DISTRICT COURTS ...................................... 4 3. Other State Courts .......................................... 4 B. Case Names ................................................... 4 1. Case Names in Textual Sentences .............................. 5 a. ACTIONS AND PARTIES CITED ............................ 5 b. PROCEDURAL PHRASES ................................. 5 c. ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... 5 i. in textual sentences .............................. 5 ii. business
    [Show full text]
  • Are the Torts of Trespass to the Person Obsolete? Part 1: Historical Development Dr Christine Beuermann*
    Are the Torts of Trespass to the Person Obsolete? Part 1: Historical Development Dr Christine Beuermann* This article re-examines the liability currently imposed by the courts for trespass to the person. It demonstrates that the process for imposing such liability has evolved so that the courts now both carefully scrutinise how the defendant engaged in the conduct which interfered with the plaintiff’s personal security and finely balance a range of competing interests. To the extent that the process for imposing liability for trespass to the person is not dissimilar to the process for imposing liability in the tort of negligence, this article questions whether the torts of trespass to the person might now be viewed as obsolete. The article is in two parts. Part one examines the historical development of trespass to the person. Part two (to be published separately) explores whether it is possible to identify anything distinctive about the process for determining liability in trespass to the person (as it has continued to evolve) when compared with the process for determining liability in negligence. INTRODUCTION The individual torts comprising trespass to the person – battery, assault and false imprisonment – can be traced to the medieval writ system. Significant questions persist, however, as to the nature of the liability imposed in respect of the torts and the circumstances in which such liability is imposed. Is the liability imposed by reason of the defendant’s wrongdoing1 or regardless of the defendant’s wrongdoing and therefore strict?2
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Process in Virginia
    te Trial Process In Virginia A Litigation Boutique THE TRIAL PROCESS IN VIRGINIA table of contents Overview . .3 Significant .MOtiOnS .in .virginia . .4 . Plea .in .Bar . .4 . DeMurrer. .5 . craving .Oyer . .5 Voir .Dire . anD .Jury .SelectiOn .in .virginia . .6 OPening .StateMent . .8 the .receiPt .Of .e viDence . .10 MOtiOnS .tO .Strike . the .eviDence . .12 crOSS-exaMinatiOn . .14 clOSing .arguMent. .15 Jury .inStructiOnS . .17 Making .a .recOrD .fOr .aPP eal . .17 tiMe .liMitS .fOr .nO ting .anD .Perfecting . an .aPPeal . .18 key .tiMe .liMit S .fOr . the .SuPreMe .cOurt .Of .virginia . .19 THE TRIAL PROCESS IN VIRGINIA overview The trial of a civil case in Virginia takes most of its central features from the English court system that was introduced into the “Virginia Colony” in the early 1600s. The core principles of confrontation, the right to a trial by one’s peers, hearsay principles and many other doctrines had already been originated, extensively debated and refined in English courts and Inns of Court long before the first gavel fell in a Virginia case. It is clearly a privilege to practice law in the historically important court system of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and everyone who “passes the bar” and earns the right to sit inside the well of the court literally follows in the footsteps of such groundbreaking pioneers as Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, George Wythe, John Marshall, Lewis Powell and Oliver Hill. However, this booklet is not designed to address either the history or the policy of the law, or to discuss the contributions of these and other legal giants whose legacy is the living system that we enjoy today as professional attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth District Court of Appeals: 4D17-2141 15 Judicial
    Filing # 74015120 E-Filed 06/25/2018 08:48:03 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC18-398 Lower Tribunal No(s).: Fourth District Court of Appeals: 4D17-2141 15th Judicial Civil Circuit: 2016 CA 009672 ALISON RAMPERSAD and LINDA J. WHITLOCK, Petitioners, vs. COCO WOOD LAKES ASSOCIATION, INC. Respondent. PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT PETITIONERS’ AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION STRICKENPetitioners Represented Propria Persona Filer: Linda J. Whitlock, pro se RECEIVED, 06/25/2018 08:48:29 AM, Clerk, Supreme Court 14630 Hideaway Lake Lane Delray Beach, Florida 33484 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………. i TABLE OF CITATIONS…………………………………………. ii - x PREFACE / INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT............................................................ 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ........................................... 7 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................... 8 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 10 STRICKEN Case No. SC2018-398 Amended Jurisdictional Brief Page [ i ] TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES Supreme Court Cases: Board of City Commissioners of Madison City. v. Grice 438
    [Show full text]
  • Some Practical Suggestions on Defense Motions and Other Procedures Before Trial Jackson W
    [Vol. 40 Some Practical Suggestions on Defense Motions and Other Procedures Before Trial Jackson W. Chance* A ,mxARY objective of the defense trial lawyer should be to terminate the litigation successfully at the earliest possible stage of the litigation in a manner which will afford reasonable assurance of receiving favorable treatment in the event of an appeal. The accomplishment of this objective before trial on the merits is much to be desired. The law affords a variety of tools for the accomplishment of that end in appropriate cases. The prac- tical usefulness of some of these implements is the main burden of this paper. Some suggestions as to when one of these tools may work if another is out of order may be worthwhile. The practitioner starts with the premise that on the hearing of a de- murrer the court is bound by the facts alleged in the pleading and is not entitled to consider facts presented to it through the medium of an af- fidavit.' But should he stop with that rule? Or are there other means avail- able, in proper cases, to reach false allegations or facts not alleged in the complaint, either on demurrer or on motion and before trial on the merits? The answer to that question presents interesting possibilities to the prac- ticing attorney. 1. InitialProblem of Whether or Not to Make a PreliminaryMove The pretrial moves discussed in this paper are aimed primarily at vul- nerable complaints. To take advantage of such vulnerability by adjudica- tion before trial on the merits is the goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Statutes Title 12. Civil Procedure
    OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 12. CIVIL PROCEDURE §12-1. Title of chapter...........................................................................................................................30 §12-2. Force of common law.................................................................................................................30 §12-3. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-4. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-5. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-6. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-7. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-8. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-9. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................31 §12-10. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31 §12-11. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31 §12-12. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31
    [Show full text]