The Supreme Court of Virginia recognizes that construction of the Constitution of Virginia and statutes of the Commonwealth by the Attorney General under the provisions of § 2.2-505 “is of the most persuasive character and is entitled to due consideration.”10 The Court also recognizes that “construction of a statute by the Attorney General is persuasive and entitled to considerable weight.”11 The General Assembly “is presumed to have knowledge of the Attorney General’s interpretation of statutes, and the General Assembly’s failure to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General’s interpretation.”12 The General Assembly has not taken any corrective action that alters the conclusions of the 1980 and 1985 opinions of the Attorney General. Therefore, the conclusions of these prior opinions govern my response to your inquiry.

Opinion of the Attorney General 2005 Va. AG 13, 15, 04-087, _ (2005)

This construction of the statute by the Attorney-General, while in no sense binding upon this court, is of the most persuasive character and is entitled to due consideration.

Barber v. City of Danville, 149 Va. 418, 424, 141 S.E. 126, _ (1928)

The first was published April 8, 1966, the second 14 years later. Since there have been no corrective amendments to the statute as thus construed, we conclude that the General Assembly approves the Attorney General’s construction.

The legislature is presumed to have had knowledge of the Attorney General's interpretation of the statutes, and its failure to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's view. See Albemarle Co. v. [Page 162] Marshall, Clerk, 215 Va. 756, 762, 214 S.E.2d 146, 150 (1975) (acquiescence for a period of seven years).

Deal v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 622, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1983).

Browning-Ferris v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157, 161-162, 300 S.E.2d 603, _ (1983)

[2] Furthermore, in reply to a question relative to the meaning of the statute, the Honorable J. Lindsay Almond, then Attorney General, in an opinion dated August 20, 1953, said: “It is reasonably plain, in my opinion, that * * * the language of the section means that an election district does not have to be divided until the number of voters reaches a total of 1501* * *.” (Italics supplied.)

After the ruling by the Attorney General, § 24-45 was amended and re-enacted, Acts of Assembly, 1954, c. 375, p. 473, specifically excepting “a city having a population of more than twenty thousand but less than thirty thousand inhabitants.”

The construction of a statute by the Attorney General is persuasive and entitled to considerable weight. Barber v. City of Danville, 149 Va. 418, 424, 141 S.E. 126, 127. United States v. Graham & Irvine, (D.C., Va.) 250 F. 499, 502; 17 Mich. Jur., Statutes, § 59, p. 319. It can also be presumed that the legislature was cognizant of such construction because the statute was amended at its next session following the Attorney General's ruling. Although the legislature has since met in two regular sessions there has been no further amendment.

Andrews v. Shepherd, 201 Va. 412, 415, 111 S.E.2d 279, _ (1959)

[8-9] Even though the General Assembly has been aware of the Attorney General’s interpretation of the phrase “machinery and tools” as used in Code § 58.1-1101(A)(2), the General Assembly has taken no action to modify that definition. And, we have repeatedly held that the General Assembly is presumed to have knowledge of the Attorney General’s interpretation of statutes, and the General Assembly’s failure to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General’s interpretation. Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157, 161-62, 300 S.E.2d 603, 605-06 (1983); Richard L. Deal and Assoc. v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 622, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1983); Albemarle County v. Marshall, 215 Va. 756, 762, 214 S.E.2d 146, 150 (1975). Therefore, we hold that American Woodmark’s furniture, fixtures, office equipment, and computer equipment are not “machinery and tools” within the meaning of [Page 459] Code § 58.1-1101(A)(2) because these items are not used in connection with the operation of machinery which is actually and directly used in the manufacturing process.

City of Winchester v. American Woodmark, 250 Va. 451, 458-459, 464 S.E.2d 148, _ (1995)

In support of the trial court’s ruling, the Commonwealth relies upon two opinions of the Attorney General, the pertinent parts of which appear in the margin.1 The first was published April 8, 1966, the second 14 years later. Since there have been no corrective amendments to the statute as thus construed, we conclude that the General Assembly approves the Attorney General’s construction.

The legislature is presumed to have had knowledge of the Attorney General's interpretation of the statutes, and its failure to make corrective amendments evinces legislative acquiescence in the Attorney General's view. See Albemarle Co. v. [Page 162] Marshall, Clerk, 215 Va. 756, 762, 214 S.E.2d 146, 150 (1975) (acquiescence for a period of seven years).

Deal v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 618, 622, 299 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1983).

Browning-Ferris v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157, 161-162, 300 S.E.2d 603, _ (1983)

Text in effect from and after October 1, 2001

Title 2.2 Administration of Government
Chap. 5 Department of Law, §§ 2.2-500 — 2.2-519
Art. 1 General Provisions, §§ 2.2-500 — 2.2-516

§ 2.2-505. Official opinions of Attorney General. —

A. The Attorney General shall give his advice and render official advisory opinions in writing only when requested in writing so to do by one of the following: the Governor; a member of the General Assembly; a judge of a court of record or a judge of a court not of record; the State Corporation Commission; an attorney for the Commonwealth; a county, city or town attorney in those localities in which such office has been created; a clerk of a court of record; a city or county sheriff; a city or county treasurer or similar officer; a commissioner of the revenue or similar officer; a chairman or secretary of an electoral board; or the head of a state department, division, bureau, institution or board.

B. Except in cases where an opinion is requested by the Governor or a member of the General Assembly, the Attorney General shall have no authority to render an official opinion unless the question dealt with is directly related to the discharge of the duties of the official requesting the opinion. Any opinion request to the Attorney General by an attorney for the Commonwealth or county, city or town attorney shall itself be in the form of an opinion embodying a precise statement of all facts together with such attorney's legal conclusions. (Code 1950, § 2-86; 1966, c. 677, § 2.1-118; 1968, c. 414; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 155; 1976, c. 715; 1999, c. 14; 2001, c. 844.)

History

Virginia Code § 2.2-505

✉ P. O. Box 65002 / Virginia Beach / Virginia / 23467-5002 / ☎ 757 – 818 – 8003
*Disclaimers/Notices/Imputed Knowledge [1] VA Code § 8.1A-202. Notice; knowledge: | *Relator: noun. a person who relates or tells; narrator. Law. a private person on whose suggestion or complaint certain writs, are issued and whose position is analogous to that of a plaintiff.; female relatrix. The relator appears as one beneficially interested, but the action is maintained on his behalf. : a party other than the plaintiff upon whose information, knowledge, or relation of facts an action is brought when the right to bring the action is vested in another: as / a : the private person who brings a qui tam action /b : a party who has standing and on whose behalf a writ is petitioned for by the state as plaintiff; [2]Regarding Electronic Signature: If this communication concerns the negotiation of a contract or agreement, electronic signature rules do not apply to this communication; [3] contract formation in this matter shall occur only with manually-affixed original signatures on original documents. [4] No negotiations respecting any item ( including repairs), such as talking about that/any item (s)or securing estimates for same shall not in any way obligate The VIRGINIA NEWS SOURCE™ [VNS™] to that item or repair(s) discussed, nor shall VNS™ or its Client be held liable for any damage(s)for failure not to include/honor the same unless obligated to do so by the terms set forth in a contract negotiated by the parties with the aforesaid manually affixed signatures. The foregoing comments are copyright © MMXXIV VNS™ and may not be copied, redistributed, extracted from, or recirculated outside of this mailing without written consent by VNS™.