resolution or by-law adopted and not repealed or rescinded prior to such date.” 3 Appellant does not challenge imposition of the penalties prescribed in Norfolk City Code § 1-11 to any other offenses. Accordingly, we do not consider whether Code § 15.1-901 would render Norfolk City Code § 1-11 void as applied to non-DUI offenses. There is a split of authority among other jurisdictions on this issue, and it appears to be a question of first impression in Virginia. See 6 Eugene McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 20.66, at 218 nn.14-18 (3d ed. 1988). It is arguable that the ordinance would be valid up to the limits set out in the state statute. See Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 98 Pa. Super. 265, 268 (1929). But see Boyles v. City of Roanoke, 179 Va. 484, 487, 19 S.E.2d 662, 663 (1942)
holding that a state court judgment that modifies a discharge in bankruptcy is void ab initio and the rookerfeldman doctrine would not bar federal court jurisdiction holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members the nlrb lacked authority to act and the enforcement order was therefore void ab initio  holding void ab initio ordinance proscribing punishment in excess of that authorized in charter holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio holding annexation ordinance void