Renkey v. County Board of Arlington County

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a county’s actions were arbitrary and capricious when it re-zoned a property without complying with its own ordinance
• recognizing that interpretation of an ordinance “is a pure question of law subject to de novo review by this Court”
• holding that municipal ordinances are interpreted in the same manner as statutes
• holding that ordinances are interpreted in the same manner as statutes
• Interpretation of an ordinance “is a pure question of law subject to de novo review by this Court.” (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Virginia Polytechnic Inst. v. Interactive Return Serv., Inc., 626 S.E.2d 436 (Va. 2006))
• “This Court has stated ‘[t]he preamble to a statute is no part of it and cannot enlarge or confer powers or control the words of the act unless they are doubtful or ambiguous.’” (quoting Commonwealth v. Ferries Co., 120 Va. 827, 831 (1917))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).