Kole v. City of Chesapeake

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing as requested by the landowners because “evidence is necessary to determine what decision, if any, was made by the City Council”
• “We also conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing as requested by the [plaintiffs].”
• “Whether to grant an amendment is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
• “In the present case, nothing in the record suggests that the City would have been prejudiced by allowance of the amended bill of complaint. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to allow the filing of the amended bill.”
• “in the present case, nothing in the record suggests that the City would have been prejudiced by allowance of the amended bill of complaint. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to allow the filing of the amended bill.”
• relying exclusively on the absence of prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).