Lee v. City of Norfolk

27 Citing cases

  1. D.A. Realestate Inv. v. City of Norfolk

    No. 23-1863 (4th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025)

    That failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars him from challenging the nuisance determination thereafter. See Lee v. City of Norfolk, 706 S.E.2d 330, 337-38 (Va. 2011).

  2. D.A. Realestate Inv. v. City of Norolk

    No. 23-1863 (4th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025)

    That failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars him from challenging the nuisance determination thereafter. See Lee v. City of Norfolk, 706 S.E.2d 330, 337-38 (Va. 2011).

  3. Page v. Portsmouth Redevelopment & Hous. Auth.

    902 S.E.2d 751 (Va. 2024)

    Under settled law, the Court of Appeals recognized, a municipality acts in its governmental, not proprietary, capacity when it demolishes an unsafe building owned by another who refuses to "abate the public nuisance." Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423, 440, 706 S.E.2d 330 (2011). Relying on Page’s alleged concession, the Court of Appeals treated PRHA as an alter-ego of the City — thus viewing the circumstances of Page’s case as "almost identical to those in Lee."

  4. Sahadeo v. City of Norfolk

    No. 0333-23-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 2, 2024)

    To support that argument, the City primarily relied on the Fourth Circuit's opinion in Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2006). Appellant responded that the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423 (2011), precluded application of Presley and required the City to provide actual notice of a building code violation pre-deprivation. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that Lee did not preclude the City's requested application of Presley and that in Lee there was no ability to bring an inverse condemnation claim whereas here appellant was actively litigating such a claim.

  5. D.A. Realestate Inv. v. City of Norfolk

    CIVIL 2:21cv653 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2023)   Cited 4 times

    Consistent with the above discussion of compartmentalized spheres of authority, well-established federal and Virginia caselaw provides that the exercise of the police power by a public body to abate a public nuisance is not a compensable taking. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 492 (1987); Sansotta, 724 F.3d at 541; Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423 (2011); Stickley, 176 Va. at 562; Jeremy Improvement Co. v. Commonwealth, 106 Va. 482, 490 (1907).

  6. Livingston v. Va. Dep't of Transp.

    726 S.E.2d 264 (Va. 2012)   Cited 16 times
    In Livingston, the Virginia Department of Transportation failed to maintain a relocated stream and instead "elected to use" nearby residential developments as "makeshift storage sites for excess stormwater."

    We review de novo the circuit court's sustaining of VDOT's demurrer. Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423, 432, 706 S.E.2d 330, 334 (2011). In conducting our review, we accept as true the facts alleged in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and give the Plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.

  7. Page v. Portsmouth Redevelopment & Hous. Auth.

    No. 0175-22-1 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "The existence of sovereign immunity is a question of law that is reviewed de novo." Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423, 439 (2011) (quoting City of Chesapeake v. Cunningham, 268 Va. 624, 633 (2004)).

  8. Clark v. Va. Dep't of Hous.

    Record No. 1537-16-4 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017)

    "It is possible for a state agency to fail to adhere strictly to its regulations without violating the constitutional right to due process." Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423, 435, 706 S.E.2d 330, 336 (2011) (rejecting building owner's argument that he had been denied due process because the letter he received from the city, which advised him his building would be demolished, cited a nonexistent section in the building code and gave him a shortened time period to appeal). Whether due process has been satisfied is a flexible concept, considering its appropriateness to the nature of the case.

  9. Va. Dep't of Corr. v. Hayden

    Record No. 1561-13-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2014)

    Assuming without deciding that the circuit court had the authority to determine whether the agency violated its own policy, the circuit court did not address—and Hayden neither alleges nor argues—that Hayden reasonably and detrimentally relied on the grievance policy requiring a full and thorough investigation. In Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423, 436, 706 S.E.2d 330, 337 (2011) (quoting Jones v. Bd. of Governors, 704 F.2d 713, 717 (4th Cir. 1983)), the Supreme Court stated, quoting a Fourth Circuit opinion, that "'significant departures from stated procedures of government and even from isolated assurances by governmental officers which have induced reasonable and detrimental reliance may, if sufficiently unfair and prejudicial, constitute procedural due process violations.'" However, the Supreme Court went on to require that the aggrieved raise this issue in the pleadings or on appeal. Hayden "neither alleged nor argued that [s]he relied on the 'assurances [of] governmental officers which have induced reasonable and detrimental reliance.

  10. Fluharty v. City of Clarksburg

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV27 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 12, 2017)   Cited 2 times
    In Fluharty, the plaintiffs brought a procedural due process claim against the city of Clarksburg for the demolitions of several properties.

    After reviewing the notices the Jacquezes received, the Court is unable to conclude that they were not apprised of "the pendency of the action." Id. ; see also Lee v. City of Norfolk, 706 S.E.2d 330, 336-37 (Va. 2011). In addition, the hearing procedure described above provided the Jacquezes with "an opportunity to present objections" to BCAB and to appeal its decision through the court system.