Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-373 (2026)

Hearing and appeal

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person aggrieved by a refusal of the Commission to issue any license or permit, the suspension or revocation of a license or permit, the imposition of a fine, or any other action of the Commission, may seek review of such action in accordance with Article 5 of the Administrative Process Act in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. Further appeals shall also be in accordance with Article 5 (§ 2.2-4025 et seq.) of the Administrative Process Act.

1988, c. 855; 1996, c. 573.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1995–2005 · leading case: Pearsall v. Virginia Racing Comm'n, 494 S.E.2d 879 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pearsall v. Virginia Racing Comm'n, 494 S.E.2d 879 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “Pearsall and the Monument Avenue Park Association (Association) contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the Association was not a “person aggrieved,” see Code § 59.1-373, and that, for that reason, the Association lacked standing to appeal from a decision of the…”

Virginia Jockey Club, Inc. v. Virginia Racing Comm'n, 469 S.E.2d 70 (Va. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 13× “Appellant appealed the awards to the circuit court pursuant to Code § 59.1-373. The circuit court affirmed the commission's issuance of the licenses.”

Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. State Water Control Bd., 616 S.E.2d 39 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “The appeal in Pearsall was governed by Code § 59.1-373, which provides for a “person aggrieved” analysis.”

James River Ass'n v. Commonwealth ex rel. Waste Mgmt. Bd., 63 Va. Cir. 602 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “2d 879 (1998), which dealt with the definition of “person aggrieved” under Va. Code § 59.1-373 concerning appeals from decisions of the Virginia Racing Commission, the court of appeals held that the Monument Avenue Park Association lacked standing to appeal the issuance of a…”

Virginia Jockey Club, Inc. v. Virginia Racing Comm'n, 36 Va. Cir. 366 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1995). · cites it 10× “14:16(A) (emphasis added)), persons aggrieved by actions of the Racing Commission may “appeal” Va. Code § 59.1-373. Second, venue for review under the APA is set out in Va.”

Robin J. Pearsall v. The VA Racing Comm.,et (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “Pearsall and the Monument Avenue Park Association (Association) contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the Association was not a "person aggrieved," see Code § 59.1-373, and that, for that reason, the Association lacked standing to appeal from a decision of the…”

Pearsall v. Virginia Racing Comm'n, 41 Va. Cir. 395 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-373 (This provision has been amended, but the amendments do not apply to cases arising before July 1,1996, which includes this case).”

Residents Involved in Saving Env't, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. Cir. 43 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “In particular, the Court of Appeals discussed standing in the context of a “person aggrieved” by a Virginia Racing Commission decision pursuant to Code § 59.1-373. The judicial review provision applicable to solid waste facility permits here offers a much broader conveyance of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.