1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 701 S.E.2d
  5. 701 S.E.2d 795 (2010)
 

FFW ENTERPRISES v. FAIRFAX COUNTY

Record Nos. 091883, 091930.

701 S.E.2d 795 (2010)

FFW ENTERPRISES v. FAIRFAX COUNTY, et al. FFW Enterprises v. Fairfax County Economic Development Authority, et al.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

November 4, 2010.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James N. Markels (Jackson & Campbell, on briefs), for appellant.

James V. McGettrick , Assistant County Attorney ( Thomas O. Lawson ; Peter L. Canzano ; A. Francis Robinson ; David P. Bobzien , County Attorney; Michael H. Long , Deputy County Attorney; Lawson and Silek; Sidley Austin, on brief), for appellees.

Amicus Curiae: The Tax Foundation ( Patrick M. McSweeney; McSweeney, Crump, Childress & Temple, Richmond, on brief), in support of appellees.

Amicus Curiae: Commonwealth of Virginia ( Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II , Attorney General; Charles E. James, Jr. , Chief Deputy Attorney General; E. Duncan Getchell, Jr. , State Solicitor General; Wesley G. Russell, Jr. , Deputy Attorney General; Stephen R. McCullough , Senior Appellate Counsel, on brief), in support of appellees.

Amicus Curiae: Local Government Attorneys of Virginia, Inc.; Virginia Association of Counties; Northern Virginia Transportation Authority; Prince William County; Arlington County ( Angela Lemmon Horan , County Attorney; Bernadette Peele , Senior Assistant County Attorney; Curt G. Spear, Jr. , Assistant County Attorney; Stephen A. MacIsaac , County Attorney; Phyllis A. Errico , Richmond, on brief), in support of appellees.

Amicus Curiae: Loudoun County ( John R. Roberts , County Attorney, on brief), in support of appellees.

Present: HASSELL, C.J., KOONTZ, KINSER, LEMONS, GOODWYN, and MILLETTE, JJ., and LACY, S.J.

OPINION BY Justice S. BERNARD GOODWYN.

In these appeals,1 we consider whether Code §§ 58.1-3221.3 and 33.1-435 violate the Constitution of Virginia (the Constitution). FFW Enterprises (FFW) owns commercially-zoned real property located in Fairfax County. The property has been assessed taxes as authorized by Code § 58.1-3221.3 and Code § 33.1-435, and FFW is challenging the constitutionality of those tax statutes.

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases