right to a fair hearing (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

right to a fair hearing in Maryland

5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Ford v. Baltimore Countygreen
md · 1973 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1977–2025
2 sentences

2024See Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 710 (1977) (“Properly to be inferred from a statutory right to a public hearing on a zoning map amendment application is a right to a fair hearing in all respects, including the privilege of introducing evidence and the duty of deciding in accordance with the evidence.”); See also Ford v. Baltimore County, 268 Md. 172, 187 (1973) (“A ‘hearing’ contemplates more than mere attendance by the public; it connotes a meeting which the public has the right to attend and the right to be heard.”) (quoting In re Kurren’s Appeal, 417 Pa. 623,

2024See Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 710 (1977) (“Properly to be inferred from a statutory right to a public hearing on a zoning map amendment application is a right to a fair hearing in all respects, including the privilege of introducing evidence and the duty of deciding in accordance with the evidence.”); See also Ford v. Baltimore County, 268 Md. 172, 187 (1973) (“A ‘hearing’ contemplates more than mere attendance by the public; it connotes a meeting which the public has the right to attend and the right to be heard.”) (quoting In re Kurren’s Appeal, 417 Pa. 623,

34
Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.green
md · 1977 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2024–2025
2 sentences

2025See Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. at 710 (“Properly to be inferred from a statutory right to a public hearing on a zoning map amendment application is a right to a fair hearing in all respects, including the privilege of introducing evidence and the duty of deciding in accordance with the evidence.”); see also Ford v. Balt.

2024See Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 710 (1977) (“Properly to be inferred from a statutory right to a public hearing on a zoning map amendment application is a right to a fair hearing in all respects, including the privilege of introducing evidence and the duty of deciding in accordance with the evidence.”); See also Ford v. Baltimore County, 268 Md. 172, 187 (1973) (“A ‘hearing’ contemplates more than mere attendance by the public; it connotes a meeting which the public has the right to attend and the right to be heard.”) (quoting In re Kurren’s Appeal, 417 Pa. 623,

33
Kurren Appealgreen
pa · 1965 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2024–2025
2 sentences

2024See Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 710 (1977) (“Properly to be inferred from a statutory right to a public hearing on a zoning map amendment application is a right to a fair hearing in all respects, including the privilege of introducing evidence and the duty of deciding in accordance with the evidence.”); See also Ford v. Baltimore County, 268 Md. 172, 187 (1973) (“A ‘hearing’ contemplates more than mere attendance by the public; it connotes a meeting which the public has the right to attend and the right to be heard.”) (quoting In re Kurren’s Appeal, 417 Pa. 623,

2024See Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 710 (1977) (“Properly to be inferred from a statutory right to a public hearing on a zoning map amendment application is a right to a fair hearing in all respects, including the privilege of introducing evidence and the duty of deciding in accordance with the evidence.”); See also Ford v. Baltimore County, 268 Md. 172, 187 (1973) (“A ‘hearing’ contemplates more than mere attendance by the public; it connotes a meeting which the public has the right to attend and the right to be heard.”) (quoting In re Kurren’s Appeal, 417 Pa. 623,

33

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Hughes v. State green
md · 1980
2 sentences

1984Id. at 229 , 421 A.2d at 76 .

1984Id. at 229 , 421 A.2d at 76 .

11984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MD § Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 22-407 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 22 (1972–2024) CA 20 (1969–2025) PA 12 (1975–2022) IL 9 (1924–2016) IN 6 (2012–2023) MD 5 (1977–2025) ND 4 (1994–2013) OH 4 (1998–2023) AZ 4 (1982–2025) WA 4 (2007–2016) CO 3 (1993–2015) HI 3 (1996–2014) WI 3 (2022–2025) NM 2 (2003–2003) LA 2 (2017–2022) TN 2 (2000–2013) OR 2 (2001–2005) AL 2 (1934–2000) MO 2 (1989–1998) MI 2 (1984–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check