Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Suffolk Ex Rel. Herbert v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided June 6, 2003No. Record 021981Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Keenan

Contrary to the language of Code § 15.2-2307, the majority’s holding permits the creation of a vested property right based on general conceptual land use plans accompanying a rezoning, rather than on evidence of a “specific project” as required by the statute. In addition, contrary to the statutory requirement that a landowner also act in “diligent pursuit” of a “specific project” to secure a vested property right, the majority allows actions taken five or more years after the relevant governmental act to constitute such “diligent pursuit.” These holdings effectively alter the statute and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Murphy v. Norfolk Community Services BoardSupreme Court of Virginia · 2000
  2. Fritts v. Carolinas Cement Co., GPSupreme Court of Virginia · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API