Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Umstattd v. Centex Homes, G.P.

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided September 14, 2007No. Record 062152PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY Senior Justice CHARLESS. RUSSELL.

This appeal presents the question whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy to compel a local land development official to accept an application for a subdivision and a preliminary subdivision plat. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that mandamus was not a proper remedy.

Facts and Proceedings

The essential facts are undisputed. In 2003, Centex Homes, G.P., a Nevada general partnership (Centex), was contract purchaser of a 324-acre tract of land in the Town of Leesburg. The property had long been zoned R-1, a category permitting subdivision…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cupp v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
  2. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. BishopSupreme Court of Virginia · 1970
  3. Cupp v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF FAIRFAX COUNTYSupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
  4. Richlands Medical Ass'n v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1985
  5. Hoffman Family, L.L.C. v. Mill Two Associates PartnershipSupreme Court of Virginia · 2000

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Miller v. Highland CountySupreme Court of Virginia · 2007
  2. In Re Com.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2009
  3. City of Chesapeake v. Dominion Securityplus Self Storage, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2016
  4. Bell v. SaundersSupreme Court of Virginia · 2009
  5. Buzbee v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Fairfax County Circuit Court · 2012

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API