9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
B & W Management, Inc. v. Tasea Investment Co.green1 sentence2008See B & W Management, 451 A.2d at 882 n. 7 ("A zoning violation does not constitute a ‘nuisance per se.’ ”). 14 . | 1 | 1 |
King v. Industrial Bank of Washingtongreen1 sentence1984But extrinsic evidence is not admissible for that purpose unless the covenant itself is ambiguous, King v. Industrial Bank, 474 A.2d 151, 155 (D.C.1984); Dixon v. Wilson, 192 A.2d 289, 291 (D.C.1963), and we find no ambiguity here. 6 The covenant specifically states that the owners granted the parking rights in the servient estate (now Carrollsburg) in exchange for the zoning exception which allowed them to develop the dominant estate (now Carrollsburg Square). | 1 | 1 |
Dixon v. Wilsongreen1 sentence1984But extrinsic evidence is not admissible for that purpose unless the covenant itself is ambiguous, King v. Industrial Bank, 474 A.2d 151, 155 (D.C.1984); Dixon v. Wilson, 192 A.2d 289, 291 (D.C.1963), and we find no ambiguity here. 6 The covenant specifically states that the owners granted the parking rights in the servient estate (now Carrollsburg) in exchange for the zoning exception which allowed them to develop the dominant estate (now Carrollsburg Square). | 1 | 1 |
Mandell v. Pasquarettogreen2 sentences1982A zoning violation does not constitute a “nuisance per se.” See Mandell v. Pasquaretto, 76 Misc.2d 405, 408 , 350 N.Y.S.2d 561, 566 (Sup.Ct.1973); Padjen v. Shipley, 553 P.2d 938, 939 (Utah 1976). 8 . 1982A zoning violation does not constitute a “nuisance per se.” See Mandell v. Pasquaretto, 76 Misc.2d 405, 408 , 350 N.Y.S.2d 561, 566 (Sup.Ct.1973); Padjen v. Shipley, 553 P.2d 938, 939 (Utah 1976). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
Padjen v. Shipleygreen1 sentence1982A zoning violation does not constitute a “nuisance per se.” See Mandell v. Pasquaretto, 76 Misc.2d 405, 408 , 350 N.Y.S.2d 561, 566 (Sup.Ct.1973); Padjen v. Shipley, 553 P.2d 938, 939 (Utah 1976). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
Flick v. Gatelygreen2 sentences1980See, e. g., Flick v. Gately, 328 Ill.App. 81 , 65 N.E.2d 137, 139 (1946); Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476 , 128 S.E.2d 879, 883 (1963); Note, The Rights of Parties Before Zoning Authorities, 41 Miss.L.J. 271, 276 (1970); Note, Board of Zoning Appeals Procedure: Informality Breeds Contempt, 16 Syracuse L.Rev. 568 (1965). 1980See, e. g., Flick v. Gately, 328 Ill.App. 81 , 65 N.E.2d 137, 139 (1946); Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476 , 128 S.E.2d 879, 883 (1963); Note, The Rights of Parties Before Zoning Authorities, 41 Miss.L.J. 271, 276 (1970); Note, Board of Zoning Appeals Procedure: Informality Breeds Contempt, 16 Syracuse L.Rev. 568 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
Jarrell v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY OF HIGH POINTgreen2 sentences1980See, e. g., Flick v. Gately, 328 Ill.App. 81 , 65 N.E.2d 137, 139 (1946); Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476 , 128 S.E.2d 879, 883 (1963); Note, The Rights of Parties Before Zoning Authorities, 41 Miss.L.J. 271, 276 (1970); Note, Board of Zoning Appeals Procedure: Informality Breeds Contempt, 16 Syracuse L.Rev. 568 (1965). 1980See, e. g., Flick v. Gately, 328 Ill.App. 81 , 65 N.E.2d 137, 139 (1946); Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476 , 128 S.E.2d 879, 883 (1963); Note, The Rights of Parties Before Zoning Authorities, 41 Miss.L.J. 271, 276 (1970); Note, Board of Zoning Appeals Procedure: Informality Breeds Contempt, 16 Syracuse L.Rev. 568 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
H. Allen v. The Zoning Commission of the District of Columbiagreen2 sentences1975At the hearing the Commission must “afford any person present a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” 6 (Emphasis added.) This hardly bespeaks trial-type adjudication. 7 The decision of the United States Circuit Court in this jurisdiction, Allen v. Zoning Commission, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 24 , 27, 449 F.2d 1100, 1103 (1971), cited by the dissent, states the nature of the usual zoning hearing: . . . 1975At the hearing the Commission must "afford any person present a reasonable opportunity to be heard." [6] (Emphasis added.) This hardly bespeaks trial-type adjudication. [7] The decision of the United States Circuit Court in this jurisdiction, Allen v. Zoning Commission, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 24 , 27, 449 F.2d 1100, 1103 (1971), cited by the dissent, states the nature of the usual zoning hearing: . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tolu v. Ayodeji
green
1 sentence2025Code § 6-641.09 (a), which permits “any neighboring property owner” who is “specially damaged” by a zoning violation to seek injunctive relief, in addition to “all other remedies provided by law.” We do not evaluate the standing arguments because, even assuming the Szymkowiczes have standing, their claims fail on the merits. 5 945 A.2d at 601 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-249 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 . 2006Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-249 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Taylor v. Eureka Investment Corp.
green
2 sentences2002Corp., 482 A.2d 354 (D.C.1984), we held that the owners of town house units in Carrollsburg Square, in the Southwest section of the District of Columbia (“Carrollsburg Square owners” or “appellees”), who maintained that they had a right to park without charge in an underground garage in the nearby Car-rollsburg high-rise apartment building condominium (“Carrollsburg Condominium”) due to a parking easement, “were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” We stated that “[t]he covenant clearly does not suggest that the [grantors] granted the parking easement in consideration for a monthly fee,” 2002Corp., 482 A.2d 354 (D.C.1984), we held that the owners of town house units in Carrollsburg Square, in the Southwest section of the District of Columbia (“Carrollsburg Square owners” or “appellees”), who maintained that they had a right to park without charge in an underground garage in the nearby Car-rollsburg high-rise apartment building condominium (“Carrollsburg Condominium”) due to a parking easement, “were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” We stated that “[t]he covenant clearly does not suggest that the [grantors] granted the parking easement in consideration for a monthly fee,” | 1 | 2002–2002 |
President of Georgetown College for Georgetown University v. Diavatis
green
1 sentence1999We “h[e]ld, relying on both the statutory language and the legislative history, that the portion of D.C.Code § 5-426 which refers to neighboring property owners or occupants who may be ‘specially damaged’ gives standing to such parties to bring suit, but no right to relief without a showing of irreparable harm.” President and Dirs. of Georgetown College, 470 A.2d at 1251-52 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.