"Unfortunately, although no doubt well-intentioned, the majority violates the judicial norms listed above," Judge Wesley G. Russell Jr. wrote in the dissent. "As explained below, I believe the majority’s departures from these norms lead the majority to an incorrect conclusion: that a defendant may invoke the protections of the overdose statute without actually experiencing an overdose."
August 05, 2022 at 10:49 AM
6 minute read
The Virginia Court of Appeals was divided 2-1 over two questions of first impression under the state’s medical-amnesty statute after a man seeking medical care for a suspected overdose was arrested and charged with drug-related offenses, according to the opinion.
Both questions concerned the medical-amnesty provision of Code §18.2-251.03, which shields a person from arrest or prosecution if they seek medical care because they are experiencing a drug overdose.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
