From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

City of Richmond v. Randall

Virginia Supreme Court
211 S.E.2d 56 (1975)

Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD

Facts

Dr. Russell E. Randall, Jr. and J. W. Keith (plaintiffs) wanted to build a three-story building for medical and general office use in the city of Richmond, Virginia (the city) (defendant). The proposed office site was in a district zoned for residential use. Randall and Keith requested a change to residential-office-district zoning and requested a special-use permit from the city council, which had jurisdiction over zoning and special-use permits under the city charter. The city council rejected Randall and Keith’s request. Randall and Keith sought declaratory relief against the city, arguing that the residential-zoning classification on the property was invalid; that the refusal to grant a special-use permit was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious; and that the court should order the city council to issue the special-use permit. The trial court found that the existing zoning ordinance was unreasonable, confiscatory, and unconstitutional as applied to Randall and Keith and that the special-use permit had been improperly denied. The court entered a decree directing the city to either adopt an ordinance granting the special-use permit or to rezone the land to permit the proposed construction. The city appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in granting relief because zoning was a legislative function.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Poff, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
The procedural disposition (e.g., reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 966,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.
Unlock this case brief Read our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.
Learn about our approach Read more about Quimbee

Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 casebooks
Uniform format for every case brief
Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

Start your free 7-day trial