Use of Motive Evidence in Judicial Review of Rezonings

Authors

Michael Allen Dymersky, Furey, Doolan & Abell, L.L.P.
Jesse Richardson, West Virginia University College of LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

6-2007

College/Unit

WVU College of Law

Abstract

In this Article, Michael Allen Dymersky and Jesse J Richardson Jr examine the widespread rule of judicial review that a court should not consider evidence of motive in reviewing legislative actions by local government. They evaluate the rule in the context of a rezoning case in Highland County, Virginia, in which a group of plaintiffs conclusively established that improper motive prompted one supervisor to vote in favor of rezoning the subject property. The Highland County Circuit Court invoked the rule against judicial review of motive evidence to foreclose any consideration of the admitted improper personal motives that had inspired that particular rezoning. The authors conclude that the rule against judicial review of motive evidence has outlived its usefulness in the context of rezonings and urge a legislative intervention.

Original Publication Title

Environmental Law Reporter

Digital Commons Citation

Dymersky, Michael Allen and Richardson, Jesse, "Use of Motive Evidence in Judicial Review of Rezonings" (2007). Law Faculty Scholarship. 52.
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/law_faculty/52

Source Citation

37 Envtl. L. Rep. 10472

Comments

This article is included in the Research Repository @WVU with the permission of the Environmental Law Reporter.