Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2017 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery County v. Merlands Club, Inc.green2 sentences2008The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal." (emphasis added)); Rockville Fuel, 257 Md. at 190-91 , 262 A.2d at 503 ("If [the applicant] shows to the satisfaction of the Board that the proposed use would be conducted without real detriment to the neighborhood and would not ac 2008The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal." (emphasis added)); Rockville Fuel, 257 Md. at 190-91 , 262 A.2d at 503 ("If [the applicant] shows to the satisfaction of the Board that the proposed use would be conducted without real detriment to the neighborhood and would not ac | 8 | 10 |
Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. v. Board of Appealsgreen2 sentences2008The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal." (emphasis added)); Rockville Fuel, 257 Md. at 190-91 , 262 A.2d at 503 ("If [the applicant] shows to the satisfaction of the Board that the proposed use would be conducted without real detriment to the neighborhood and would not ac 2008The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal." (emphasis added)); Rockville Fuel, 257 Md. at 190-91 , 262 A.2d at 503 ("If [the applicant] shows to the satisfaction of the Board that the proposed use would be conducted without real detriment to the neighborhood and would not ac | 8 | 10 |
Turner v. Hammondgreen2 sentences1981But, if there is no probative evidence at all of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal. [Montgomery Co. v.] Merlands [Club, 202 Md. 279 , 96 A.2d 261 (1953)]. [Id. at 191.] A more recent case in which we reversed the denial of a special exception by a local board and an affirmance of that denial by the circuit court is Turner v. Hammond, 270 Md. 41 , 310 A.2d 543 (1973). 1981But, if there is no probative evidence at all of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal. [Montgomery Co. v.] Merlands [Club, 202 Md. 279 , 96 A.2d 261 (1953)]. [Id. at 191.] A more recent case in which we reversed the denial of a special exception by a local board and an affirmance of that denial by the circuit court is Turner v. Hammond, 270 Md. 41 , 310 A.2d 543 (1973). | 7 | 9 |
Anderson v. Sawyergreen2 sentences2011Turner v. Hammond, 270 Md. 41, 54-55 , 310 A.2d 543, 550-51 (1973); Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. v. Board of Appeals of Gaithersburg, 257 Md. 183, 187-88 , 262 A.2d 499, 502 (1970); Montgomery County v. Merlands Club, Inc., 202 Md. 279, 287 , 96 A.2d 261, 264 (1953); Anderson v. Sawyer, 23 Md.App. 612, 617 , 329 A.2d 716, 720 (1974). 2011Turner v. Hammond, 270 Md. 41, 54-55 , 310 A.2d 543, 550-51 (1973); Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. v. Board of Appeals of Gaithersburg, 257 Md. 183, 187-88 , 262 A.2d 499, 502 (1970); Montgomery County v. Merlands Club, Inc., 202 Md. 279, 287 , 96 A.2d 261, 264 (1953); Anderson v. Sawyer, 23 Md.App. 612, 617 , 329 A.2d 716, 720 (1974). | 7 | 8 |
Schultz v. Prittsgreen2 sentences2008"But if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception use is arbitrary, capricious, and illegal.” (Italics in original.) (Underlining added.) Schultz, 291 Md. at 11 , 432 A.2d at 1325 . 12 . 291 Md. 1, 11 , 432 A.2d 1319, 1325 (1981). 2008"But if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception use is arbitrary, capricious, and illegal.” (Italics in original.) (Underlining added.) Schultz, 291 Md. at 11 , 432 A.2d at 1325 . 12 . 291 Md. 1, 11 , 432 A.2d 1319, 1325 (1981). | 1 | 9 |
Deen v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences2008The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal." (emphasis added)); Rockville Fuel, 257 Md. at 190-91 , 262 A.2d at 503 ("If [the applicant] shows to the satisfaction of the Board that the proposed use would be conducted without real detriment to the neighborhood and would not ac 2008The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal." (emphasis added)); Rockville Fuel, 257 Md. at 190-91 , 262 A.2d at 503 ("If [the applicant] shows to the satisfaction of the Board that the proposed use would be conducted without real detriment to the neighborhood and would not ac | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimoregreen1 sentence2002Schultz, 291 Md. at 11 , 432 A.2d 1319 (citations omitted; emphasis in original); see also Eastern Outdoor II, 307-09, 807 A.2d 49 . | 1 | 1 |
Cason v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences1971But, if there is no probative evidence at all of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal.” ( 257 Md. at 191 , 262 A. 2d at 504 .) We cited Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. with approval in the recent case of Cason v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, 261 Md. 699, 707 , 276 A. 2d 661, 665 (1971). *162 See also Montgomery County Council v. Scrimgeour, 211 Md. 306 , 127 A. 2d 528 (1956); Montgo 1971But, if there is no probative evidence at all of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal.” ( 257 Md. at 191 , 262 A. 2d at 504 .) We cited Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. with approval in the recent case of Cason v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, 261 Md. 699, 707 , 276 A. 2d 661, 665 (1971). *162 See also Montgomery County Council v. Scrimgeour, 211 Md. 306 , 127 A. 2d 528 (1956); Montgo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kirkman v. Montgomery County Council
green
2 sentences1975Co. Board of Appeals, 261 Md. 153 , 274 A. 2d 379 (1971); Kirkman v. Montgomery Co. Council, 251 Md. 273 , 247 A. 2d 255 (1968). 1975Co. Board of Appeals, 261 Md. 153 , 274 A. 2d 379 (1971); Kirkman v. Montgomery Co. Council, 251 Md. 273 , 247 A. 2d 255 (1968). | 2 | 1971–1975 |
Attar v. DMS Tollgate, LLC
green
1 sentence2017Id. 14 We also noted in Attar that “[w]hile an applicant for a [conditional use] bears both the burden of persuasion and of production, the concurrent presumption in favor of a [conditional use] applicant is not a mutually exclusive evidentiary burden.” 451 Md. at 286 , 152 A.3d at 774 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Prince George's County v. Meininger
green
2 sentences1975The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing *419 disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal.” Prince George’s Co. v. Meininger, 264 Md. 148 , 285 A. 2d 649 (1972); Gerachis v. Mont. 1975The extent of any harm or disturbance to the neighboring area and uses is, of course, material but if there is no probative evidence of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing *419 disharmony to the functioning of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal.” Prince George’s Co. v. Meininger, 264 Md. 148 , 285 A. 2d 649 (1972); Gerachis v. Mont. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Gerachis v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1975Co. Board of Appeals, 261 Md. 153 , 274 A. 2d 379 (1971); Kirkman v. Montgomery Co. Council, 251 Md. 273 , 247 A. 2d 255 (1968). 1975Co. Board of Appeals, 261 Md. 153 , 274 A. 2d 379 (1971); Kirkman v. Montgomery Co. Council, 251 Md. 273 , 247 A. 2d 255 (1968). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Montgomery County Council v. Scrimgeour
green
2 sentences1971But, if there is no probative evidence at all of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal.” ( 257 Md. at 191 , 262 A. 2d at 504 .) We cited Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. with approval in the recent case of Cason v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, 261 Md. 699, 707 , 276 A. 2d 661, 665 (1971). *162 See also Montgomery County Council v. Scrimgeour, 211 Md. 306 , 127 A. 2d 528 (1956); Montgo 1971But, if there is no probative evidence at all of harm or disturbance in light of the nature of the zone involved or of factors causing disharmony to the operation of the comprehensive plan, a denial of an application for a special exception is arbitrary, capricious and illegal.” ( 257 Md. at 191 , 262 A. 2d at 504 .) We cited Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. with approval in the recent case of Cason v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, 261 Md. 699, 707 , 276 A. 2d 661, 665 (1971). *162 See also Montgomery County Council v. Scrimgeour, 211 Md. 306 , 127 A. 2d 528 (1956); Montgo | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.