Thus, any benefit Doe received when the Virginia State Police removed his registry information from the internet was a product of Va. Code § 9.1-909 (2005) though triggered by the circuit courts April 1, 2005, order. Doe argues the benefit created by a successful § 9.1-909 petition created a vested right to have his registry information permanently removed from the internet. The few Virginia cases to consider vested rights identify such rights as property rights or quasi-property rights. See Shiflet v. Eller, 228 Va. 115, 121, 319 S.E.2d 750 (1984) (right to a cause of action for contribution from a joint tortfeasor is a vested right); Potomoc Hospital Corp. v. Dillon, 229 Va. 355, 360-61, 329 S.E.2d 41 (1985) (same); Bartholomew v. Bartholomew, 233 Va. 86, 90-91, 353 S.E.2d 752 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Starnes v. Cayouette, 244 Va. 202, 207, 419
holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor holding a defendant is not vested with a right to be absent from trial recognizing right of contribution against joint tortfeasor where release is obtained on his behalf holding that right of one joint tortfeasor to implead a second joint tortfeasor and have the jury apportion the damages according to their relative degrees of fault was not merely a procedural right but a substantive right holding that a right to be released when a joint tortfeasor has been released is a vested right