City of Richmond v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 29 November 1971 |
| Citation | 184 S.E.2d 784,212 Va. 428 |
| Parties | CITY OF RICHMOND v. Freeman C. HAYES, M.D., Director of Public Health, etc. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Daniel T. Balfour, Asst. City Atty., for the City of Richmond (Conard B. Mattox, Jr., City Atty., for the City of Richmond, on brief), for petitioner.
Francis T. Eck, J. Murray Hooker, II, Richmond (Jeffreys & Lawler, Richmond, on brief), for respondent.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.
Invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court (Va.Const. Art. VI, § 1, Code § 17--96), the City of Richmond filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus against its Director of the Department of Public Health, Freeman C. Hayes. The petition prays that we compel the Director to perform the ministerial duties imposed upon him by an Ordinance of the city (No. 68--223--187) that implemented Chapter 799 of the 1968 Acts of Assembly.
Chapter 799 of the Acts of Assembly provides for the abatement of nuisances in leased multiple dwellings. A multiple dwelling is defined in the Act as '(a) structure or dwelling that is leased to and occupied by two or more families.'
The Act provides, in substance, that when the Department of Public Health of the city, while carring out its duties, finds that any multiple dwelling or any part thereof constitutes a nuisance, then it shall give notice by certified mail to the owner, rental agent, mortgagee and any other lien creditor of record of such nuisance. The owner or other person is allowed a certain period of time, usually twenty-one days, to commence making the repairs described in the notice. If no action is taken within the required time, the Department May institute in the Hustings Court of the city a proceeding by filing a verified petition for an order directing the necessary parties to appear and show cause why the repairs should not be made.
If such a proceeding is instituted and the court finds that a nuisance does exist and its immediate abatement is necessary, the owner or other person must commence making the necessary repairs within fourteen days or vacate the dwelling until the repairs are made. If the owner does not make the repairs or vacate the dwelling, the court shall appoint the Director who May make the necessary repairs or other necessary improvements to rehabilitate the property.
The Director is empowered to collect and withhold all 'the accrued and accruing rents, issues and profits of the dwelling and apply the same to the cost of removing or abating the nuisance * * *.' The withholding of the rents, issues and profits is first subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Com.
...and in a prescribed manner, without regard to his own judgment as to the propriety of the act to be done." City of Richmond v. Hayes, 212 Va. 428, 429, 184 S.E.2d 784, 785 (1971) (citing Dovel v. Bertram, 184 Va. 19, 22, 34 S.E.2d 369, 370 (1945)); accord In re: Horan, 271 Va. at 258-59, 63......
-
Howell v. McAuliffe
...and in a prescribed manner, without regard to his own judgment as to the propriety of the act to be done.” City of Richmond v. Hayes , 212 Va. 428, 429, 184 S.E.2d 784, 785 (1971).17 As a result of our holding that the Executive Orders are unconstitutional, no election official in the Commo......
-
Jones v. Buford
...permissive rather than mandatory, especially where, as here, the action seeks relief by way of mandamus. Thus in Richmond v. Hayes, 212 Va. 428, 184 S.E.2d 784 (1971) suit was brought to compel a health officer to take action with respect to allegedly substandard housing pursuant to a statu......
-
Willoughby v. Grim
...regard to personal judgment or opinion. Rodriguez v. Solis, 1 Cal.App.4th 495, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 50, 53 (1991); City of Richmond v. Hayes, 212 Va. 428, 184 S.E.2d 784, 785 (1971). ¶9 Interpreting a similarly worded statute, we have found a county's duty to maintain its roads is ministerial and ......