Re: C'mon America, ticket left lane hogs

In article <42CB0AF1.3C2803BF@comcast.net>,
Scott M. Kozel <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote:
>Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't see a glossary on the Code of Virginia website, but I'm sure
>> >>> that a traffic court judge could explain exactly what the legal
>> >>> interpretation is, in all likelihood in includes everything in Title
>> >>> 46.2 - MOTOR VEHICLES.
>>
>> > Guardenman wrote:
>> >> It is in chapter one. Most interpretations say that severability
>> >> applies to this statement (46.2-823). So even with the word article
>> >> included it stands alone.
>>
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> > Within title 46.2, subtitle III, chapter 8, article 2 of the code of
>> > Virginia. A hard copy, or the annotated code available on LexisNexis
>> > will show that.
>>
>> Oh, and BTW Guardenman and Scott Kozel:
>>
>> "'THE WORDS "SHALL FORFEIT ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH HE MIGHT OTHERWISE
>> HAVE HEREUNDER' APPLY ONLY TO THIS SECTION and cannot be said to apply
>> to any other sections conferring other and different types of
>> right-of-way. Atwell v. Watson, 204 Va. 624, 133 S.E.2d 552 (1963)."
>
>So how about linking to an official copy of this court decision, so we
>can see if that is in context with and is applicable to anything in this
>thread.

Probably because it's on a for-pay system.

>If the decision happened 42 years ago, it really wouldn't be applicable
>to a current interpretation of the code, in any event, since the code
>changes over time.

If that section hasn't changed, and there aren't any more current
decisions, then the 42 year old decision is still good law. Judicial
opinions don't rot due to age.

>Like I said in what you quoted above, you need a judicial interpretation
>of this issue.

Which has just been posted. Not that the plain language of the law in
this case needs much interpretation.