The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Turner v. Board of Supervisors
No. 010580Supreme Court of Virginia
010580 Turner v. Board of Supervisors 03/01/2002 The circuit court correctly determined that a zoning ordinance constituted piecemeal downzoning prohibiting two landowners from developing property consistent w…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
010580 Turner v. Board of Supervisors 03/01/2002 The circuit court correctly determined that a zoning ordinance constituted piece…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- March 1, 2002
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
010580 Turner v. Board of Supervisors 03/01/2002 The circuit court correctly determined that a zoning ordinance constituted piecemeal downzoning prohibiting two landowners from developing property consistent with the comprehensive plan. In response to the landowners' prima facie showing that there was no change in circumstances justifying the change, the county failed to carry its burden of producing evidence sufficient to make the validity of the ordinance fairly debatable. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
ReversedAffirmed
The court's record, as written
010580 Turner v. Board of Supervisors 03/01/2002 The circuit court correctly determined that a zoning ordinance constituted piecemeal downzoning prohibiting two landowners from developing property consistent with the comprehensive plan. In response to the landowners' prima facie showing that there was no change in circumstances justifying the change, the county failed to carry its burden of producing evidence sufficient to make the validity of the ordinance fairly debatable. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered.
Outcome words in this text: affirmed, reversed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links