City of Hopewell v. Shree Arihant Motel, Inc., 251193

Shree Arihant Motel owned the Colonial Corner shopping center in Hopewell, which became vacant after failed redevelopment attempts. 1
City officials declared Colonial Corner blighted, unsafe, and unfit for human occupancy, and asked Shree Arihant to submit an abatement plan. 2
After public meetings and planning, the City decided to proceed with a controlled burn and later told Shree Arihant it would burn the building on or after February 26, 2021. 3
The City also ordered Shree Arihant to fence the property to deter trespassing, and Shree Arihant paid for the fence. 4
Shree Arihant sued the City for trespass, business conspiracy, tortious interference, waste, takings, and declaratory relief; the City asserted sovereign immunity by plea in bar. 5
The circuit court denied the plea in bar, finding it could not determine whether the City's actions were solely or partially governmental, and the City took an interlocutory appeal. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the circuit court have interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the immunity ruling? 7	Shree Arihant did not oppose review of the immunity ruling.	The City sought immediate review of the denied sovereign-immunity plea in bar.	Yes; the Court exercised discretionary interlocutory review. 8
Was the City immune from claims arising from the controlled burn? 9	Shree Arihant argued the City acted ultra vires and for redevelopment, not blight abatement.	The City said it burned the property as a governmental blight-abatement function.	Yes; the City was performing a governmental function and is immune from most claims. 10
Does alleged noncompliance with blight-abatement procedures defeat immunity? 11	Shree Arihant said the City failed to adopt the required ordinance and formal vote.	The City said immunity turns on function, not perfect statutory compliance.	No; immunity depends on the nature of the function, not compliance errors. 12
Can the City be immune if it had mixed motives including redevelopment? 13	Shree Arihant claimed blight abatement was a pretext for redevelopment.	The City said it also burned the building to eliminate blight.	Yes; blight abatement remained the overriding governmental function. 14

Stevens v. Jurnigan, 927 S.E.2d 799 (Va. 2026) (plea in bar is a defensive pleading that can bar recovery 15)
Massenburg v. City of Petersburg, 298 Va. 212 (Va. 2019) (municipal sovereign immunity depends on the function performed 16)
Niese v. City of Alexandria, 264 Va. 230 (Va. 2002) (sovereign immunity protects governmental functions tied to public welfare 17)
City of Chesapeake v. Cunningham, 268 Va. 624 (Va. 2004) (governmental functions are discretionary public-welfare powers; proprietary functions are ministerial 18)
Hoggard v. City of Richmond, 172 Va. 145 (Va. 1939) (immunity can apply even when a governmental function is performed negligently or improperly 19)
City of Va. Beach v. Carmichael Dev. Co., 259 Va. 493 (Va. 2000) (when governmental and other functions coincide, the governmental function controls 20)
School Bd. of Stafford Cnty. v. Sumner Falls Run, LLC, 303 Va. 253 (Va. 2024) (sovereign immunity does not bar claims under self-executing takings provisions 21)
Montalla, LLC v. Commonwealth, 303 Va. 150 (Va. 2024) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicit and express 22)
Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 270 Va. 423 (Va. 2005) (waiver of sovereign immunity may not be implied from general statutory language 23)
Afzall v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 226 (Va. 2007) (sovereign immunity can bar declaratory judgment claims arising from governmental functions 24)