Skip to Content Skip to Content
Attorney General of Virginia Header

t
View Office of the Attorney General Expenditures

xt

HOT TOPICS

Lock Up Your Meds
News for CitizensOcwen MortgageMortgage Servicing Settlement Agreement
Tobacco
Computer Crime
Human Trafficking
Gang Prevention
Bullying
Drug Take Back Program Line of Duty Death Claims
Veterans
Medicaid Fraud
Elder Abuse and Neglect
TRIAD - Seniors
Official Opinions

 

January 2006 Opinions
Please click on Opinion number to view entire opinion.

Opinion # Requestor

Summary

05-071 The Honorable Robert G. Marshall
Member, House of Delegates
No statute directly addresses statutory authority allowing homebuilders to maintain majority control of property owners’ association until construction of community property is completed and transferred to association. Any recourse that association may have regarding defective community property is private cause of action.
05-076 The Honorable John M. O’Bannon, III, M.D.
Member, House of Delegates
Licensed optometrist, whose practice is not controlled or influenced by agent or employee of commercial or mercantile establishment, may be employed by independent ophthalmology practice, which has direct access to commercial or mercantile establishment and sells eye glasses or contact lenses ancillary to its practice, provided that majority of beneficial ownership of practice is owned by ophthalmologic practice and/or one or more ophthalmologists.
05-078 The Honorable R. Creigh Deeds
Member, Senate of Virginia
Governing boards of Virginia’s public colleges and universities may not impose general prohibition on carrying of concealed weapons by permitted individuals. Pursuant to specific grants of statutory authority, however, colleges and universities may regulate conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus.
05-079 Mr. C. Dean Foster, Jr.
Scott County Attorney
Certain landowner appears to be developer with speculative interest for assessment by localities of portion of cost of including roadway in state secondary highway system; governing body of county must obtain written declarations of acquiescence in such assessment from owners of at least seventy-five percent of platted parcels of land abutting upon street. To extent of whether landowner is developer is question of fact, Attorney General does not issue opinions regarding questions of fact.
05-081 Mr. Mark B. Taylor
Spotsylvania County Attorney
Interpretation of ‘abutting property owners’ in Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act requires some relationship constituting physical connection between assessed property and financed improvement; abutting property owners are not necessarily limited to owners of property with fee simple frontage on improvement.
05-082 The Honorable Robert D. Orrock
Member, House of Delegates
Locality’s approval of preliminary subdivision plat expires after one year when subdivider or developer either fails to submit final plat of property or portion of property within one year of approval, or such longer period prescribed by local ordinance, or diligently pursue approval of final subdivision plat.
05-091 Mr. G. W. Thomas, Jr.
Chairman, Electoral Board

Ms. Dorothy B. Dockery
Secretary, Electoral Board

City of Richmond
No exemption for Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy from limitation on access to polling place; representatives of Office may not enter into polling place on Election Day without express, written permission of appropriate local electoral board.
05-092 The Honorable Harvey B. Morgan
Member, House of Delegates
Funds placed in certain 1989 trust are subject to law in effect in 1989 and are exempt in calculating available resources under Virginia Medicaid Program. Funds placed in certain 2005 trust are exempt in calculating available resources under Program, provided that funds transferred to trust do not exceed value of funeral services and supplies purchased by person designated in preneed agreement as trustor.
06-002 The Honorable John H. Chichester
Member, Senate of Virginia
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Menhaden Management Board exceeded adaptive management authority when adopting menhaden cap in Addendum II because (1) cap is wholly new management measure, which cannot be implemented by addendum; (2) when Atlantic menhaden stocks have been declared "healthy," cap or quota cannot be imposed unless menhaden are found to be overfished; and (3) Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan does not include prerequisite management measure that can be varied by imposition of cap through addendum. Should General Assembly decline to adopt menhaden cap, Commonwealth would not be out of compliance with Plan because Commission failed to follow required procedures.