This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 7 -
the location of the outdoor advertising signs described in the [permit applications] complied with
the City’s zoning ordinance.”
“Code § 8.01-184 ‘is the statutory authority for declaratory judgment proceedings in this
Commonwealth. From it stem[s] the jurisdiction of the courts of record to entertain applications
for declaratory relief and the power to make binding adjudications of the rights of the parties
involved.’” Pure Presbyterian Church of Wash. v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church, 296 Va.
42, 55 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting City of Fairfax v. Shanklin, 205 Va. 227, 229
(1964)). Code § 8.01-184 states:
In cases of actual controversy, circuit courts within the scope of
their respective jurisdictions shall have power to make binding
adjudications of right, whether or not consequential relief is, or at
the time could be, claimed and no action or proceeding shall be
open to objection on the ground that a judgment order or decree
merely declaratory of right is prayed for. Controversies involving
the interpretation of deeds, wills, and other instruments of writing,
statutes, municipal ordinances and other governmental regulations,
may be so determined, and this enumeration does not exclude other
instances of actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right.
“The General Assembly created the power to issue declaratory judgments to resolve
disputes ‘before the right is violated.’” Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Operators Ass’n v.
Albemarle Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 285 Va. 87, 98 (2013) (quoting Patterson’s Ex’rs v.
Patterson, 144 Va. 113, 120 (1926)). “[W]here claims and rights asserted have fully matured,
and the alleged wrongs have already been suffered, a declaratory judgment proceeding, which is
intended to permit the declaration of rights before they mature, is not an available remedy.” Bd.
of Cnty. Supervisors v. Hylton Enters., Inc., 216 Va. 582, 585 (1976); see also Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Bishop, 211 Va. 414, 421 (1970) (holding that, “as a rule,” the power to issue a
declaratory judgment will not be exercised “where some other mode of proceeding is provided”).
“In addition, the purpose of a declaratory judgment action is not to resolve disputed facts.” Pure
Presbyterian, 296 Va. at 55. Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)