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.
12 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mills v. Town of Eliotgreen2 sentences2017See Mills, 2008 ME 134, ¶ 13 , 955 A.2d 258 . 2017See Mills, 2008 ME 134, ¶ 13 , 955 A.2d 258 . | 4 | 4 |
Harrington v. City of Biddefordgreen2 sentences2000Nevertheless, we concluded that “[gjiven the location of the [plaintiffs] house, a decision by the Board of Appeals that entitled [defendant] to build a house closer to the street than their house rose to the level of particularized injury sufficient to confer standing.” Id. [¶ 10] The Sahls and the Crafts own property across the street from the proposed motel expansion." They appeared at the ZBA hearing. 2000Nevertheless, we concluded that “[gjiven the location of the [plaintiffs] house, a decision by the Board of Appeals that entitled [defendant] to build a house closer to the street than their house rose to the level of particularized injury sufficient to confer standing.” Id. [¶ 10] The Sahls and the Crafts own property across the street from the proposed motel expansion." They appeared at the ZBA hearing. | 1 | 2 |
White v. Town of Hollisgreen1 sentence2015See White v. Town of Hollis, 589 A.2d 46, 48 (Me.1991) (affirming the town zoning board’s decision because the plaintiff had not shown that she would have prevailed had the board followed the proper procedure). [¶ 21] Second, as the City acknowledges in its brief, the City Planner acted unprofessionally when he sent an email to the ZBA disparaging Fitanides’s assertion of his rights in the zoning proceedings and encouraging the ZBA to rule against Fitanides because of his involvement in prior litigation with the Town. | 1 | 1 |
Viles v. Town of Embdengreen2 sentences2008See Viles v. Town of Embden, 2006 ME 107, ¶¶ 8-13 , 905 A.2d 298, 301-02 (describing the good cause exception, which the Superior Court may apply to narrowly extend the time for bringing an appeal to prevent a flagrant miscarriage of justice). [¶ 6] The ZBA held a hearing on the appeal on April 17, 2007. 2008See Viles v. Town of Embden, 2006 ME 107, ¶¶ 8-13 , 905 A.2d 298, 301-02 (describing the good cause exception, which the Superior Court may apply to narrowly extend the time for bringing an appeal to prevent a flagrant miscarriage of justice). [¶ 6] The ZBA held a hearing on the appeal on April 17, 2007. | 1 | 1 |
Britton v. Town of Yorkgreen1 sentence2005Britton v. Town of York, 673 A.2d 1322, 1325 (Me. 1996). a. | 1 | 1 |
Forester v. City of Westbrookgreen2 sentences1998See Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶¶8-11 , 703 A.2d 844, 847 ; Forester v. City of Westbrook, 604 A.2d 31, 32 (Me.1992); Harrington v. City of Biddeford, 583 A.2d 695, 696 (Me.1990); Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048, 1050 (Me.1982). [¶ 9] In his application for an administrative appeal, Brooks expressly requested that the ZBA “reverse the Decision [of the CEO] and direct that any Application for change of any legally existing non-conforming use of the property be sent to the Planning Board for review.” Brooks’ application set forth several legal arguments to support thi 1998See Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶¶8-11 , 703 A.2d 844, 847 ; Forester v. City of Westbrook, 604 A.2d 31, 32 (Me.1992); Harrington v. City of Biddeford, 583 A.2d 695, 696 (Me.1990); Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048, 1050 (Me.1982). [¶ 9] In his application for an administrative appeal, Brooks expressly requested that the ZBA “reverse the Decision [of the CEO] and direct that any Application for change of any legally existing non-conforming use of the property be sent to the Planning Board for review.” Brooks’ application set forth several legal arguments to support thi | 1 | 1 |
Singal v. City of Bangorgreen2 sentences1998See Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶¶8-11 , 703 A.2d 844, 847 ; Forester v. City of Westbrook, 604 A.2d 31, 32 (Me.1992); Harrington v. City of Biddeford, 583 A.2d 695, 696 (Me.1990); Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048, 1050 (Me.1982). [¶ 9] In his application for an administrative appeal, Brooks expressly requested that the ZBA “reverse the Decision [of the CEO] and direct that any Application for change of any legally existing non-conforming use of the property be sent to the Planning Board for review.” Brooks’ application set forth several legal arguments to support thi 1998See Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶¶8-11 , 703 A.2d 844, 847 ; Forester v. City of Westbrook, 604 A.2d 31, 32 (Me.1992); Harrington v. City of Biddeford, 583 A.2d 695, 696 (Me.1990); Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048, 1050 (Me.1982). [¶ 9] In his application for an administrative appeal, Brooks expressly requested that the ZBA “reverse the Decision [of the CEO] and direct that any Application for change of any legally existing non-conforming use of the property be sent to the Planning Board for review.” Brooks’ application set forth several legal arguments to support thi | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.green2 sentences1998See Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶¶8-11 , 703 A.2d 844, 847 ; Forester v. City of Westbrook, 604 A.2d 31, 32 (Me.1992); Harrington v. City of Biddeford, 583 A.2d 695, 696 (Me.1990); Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048, 1050 (Me.1982). [¶ 9] In his application for an administrative appeal, Brooks expressly requested that the ZBA “reverse the Decision [of the CEO] and direct that any Application for change of any legally existing non-conforming use of the property be sent to the Planning Board for review.” Brooks’ application set forth several legal arguments to support thi 1998See Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1997 ME 203, ¶¶8-11 , 703 A.2d 844, 847 ; Forester v. City of Westbrook, 604 A.2d 31, 32 (Me.1992); Harrington v. City of Biddeford, 583 A.2d 695, 696 (Me.1990); Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048, 1050 (Me.1982). [¶ 9] In his application for an administrative appeal, Brooks expressly requested that the ZBA “reverse the Decision [of the CEO] and direct that any Application for change of any legally existing non-conforming use of the property be sent to the Planning Board for review.” Brooks’ application set forth several legal arguments to support thi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth
green
2 sentences2015The ZBA discussed all of the issues in Fitanides’s appeal “with a view toward making a sincere effort to fairly decide the issue before them,” id. at 903 , and even after receiving the email, the ZBA ruled in Fitanides’s favor on the issue of delegation to the City Planner. 2015The ZBA discussed all of the issues in Fitanides’s appeal “with a view toward making a sincere effort to fairly decide the issue before them,” id. at 903 , and even after receiving the email, the ZBA ruled in Fitanides’s favor on the issue of delegation to the City Planner. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Camp v. Town of Shapleigh
green
1 sentence2009“We do not make any findings other than those found explicitly or implicitly by the Board, and we do not substitute our judgment for that of the Board.” Id. [¶ 28] The ZBA applied the factors provided in 30-A M.R.S. § 4353(4) to determine whether to grant Moore a variance from the driveway setback requirement in the Land Use Zoning Ordinance. [¶ 29] Section 4353(4) provides in relevant part: [T]he board may grant a variance only when strict application of the ordinance to the petitioner and the petitioner’s property would cause undue hardship. *912 The term “undue hardship” as used in this sub | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Lewis v. Town of Rockport
green
2 sentences2005Leznis T I . 'l'n7llir of Rock/lort, 2005 A4E 77, 11; 870 A.2d 107,110 . 'I'he b~lrdenis on the plaintiff to ' l'his letter 1s n o t ~ n e n t i o n e din the notes of the ZBA hearing prove that, based on the evidence in the record, the ZBA should have reached a oiYork, 673 A.2d 1 .322, 2325 (Me. 7996). different conclusion. 2005Leznis T I . 'l'n7llir of Rock/lort, 2005 A4E 77, 11; 870 A.2d 107,110 . 'I'he b~lrdenis on the plaintiff to ' l'his letter 1s n o t ~ n e n t i o n e din the notes of the ZBA hearing prove that, based on the evidence in the record, the ZBA should have reached a oiYork, 673 A.2d 1 .322, 2325 (Me. 7996). different conclusion. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Shrader v. Bureau of Professional
green
2 sentences2005Leznis T I . 'l'n7llir of Rock/lort, 2005 A4E 77, 11; 870 A.2d 107,110 . 'I'he b~lrdenis on the plaintiff to ' l'his letter 1s n o t ~ n e n t i o n e din the notes of the ZBA hearing prove that, based on the evidence in the record, the ZBA should have reached a oiYork, 673 A.2d 1 .322, 2325 (Me. 7996). different conclusion. 2005Leznis T I . 'l'n7llir of Rock/lort, 2005 A4E 77, 11; 870 A.2d 107,110 . 'I'he b~lrdenis on the plaintiff to ' l'his letter 1s n o t ~ n e n t i o n e din the notes of the ZBA hearing prove that, based on the evidence in the record, the ZBA should have reached a oiYork, 673 A.2d 1 .322, 2325 (Me. 7996). different conclusion. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley
green
2 sentences2001Cf. Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley, 659 A.2d 280 (Me.1995) (holding that the ZBA’s role in appeal from CEO’s violation determination was advisory in nature and not subject to judicial review when the ordinance only authorized the ZBA to recommend that the CEO reconsider her violation determination). 2001Cf. Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley, 659 A.2d 280 (Me.1995) (holding that the ZBA's role in appeal from CEO's violation determination was advisory in nature and not subject to judicial review when the ordinance only authorized the ZBA to recommend that the CEO reconsider her violation determination). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.
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.