unconstitutional taking standard (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

unconstitutional taking standard in Maryland

7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2020 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Councilgreen
scotus · 1992 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015In Belvoir Farms, the Court of Appeals explained that the unwarranted hardship standard is generally stricter than a “practical difficulties” standard (id. at 266, 734 A.2d 227 ), but not as stringent as an unconstitutional taking standard, which examines whether “a ‘regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.’ ” Id. at 281-82 , 734 A.2d 227 (quoting Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)).

2015In Belvoir Farms, the Court of Appeals explained that the unwarranted hardship standard is generally stricter than a “practical difficulties” standard (id. at 266, 734 A.2d 227 ), but not as stringent as an unconstitutional taking standard, which examines whether “a ‘regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.’ ” Id. at 281-82 , 734 A.2d 227 (quoting Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)).

12
Chesley v. City of Annapolisgreen
mdctspecapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Stated differently, under the unwarranted hardship standard, the need for the variance “ ‘must be substantial and urgent and not merely for the convenience of the applicant[.]’ ” Chesley v. City of Annapolis, 176 Md.App. 413, 432 , 933 A.2d 475 (2007) (quoting Belvoir Farms, 355 Md. at 276 , 734 A.2d 227 ).

2015Stated differently, under the unwarranted hardship standard, the need for the variance “ ‘must be substantial and urgent and not merely for the convenience of the applicant[.]’ ” Chesley v. City of Annapolis, 176 Md.App. 413, 432 , 933 A.2d 475 (2007) (quoting Belvoir Farms, 355 Md. at 276 , 734 A.2d 227 ).

12

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
BELVOIR FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. INC. v. North green
md · 1999
2 sentences

2020After examining the various judicial interpretations of the “unwarranted” or “unreasonable” hardship standard adopted by other states in the application of their respective variance standards, we explained that “[a]uthorities throughout the country . . . define the unnecessary, unreasonable, unwarranted, or similarly-worded hardship standard to be either the denial of beneficial or reasonable use or the denial of all viable economic use, the unconstitutional taking standard.” Id. at 281 .

2016After further surveying case law in Maryland and other states, *130 the Court concluded that the “unwarranted hardship” standard could be “either the denial of beneficial or reasonable use or the denial of all viable economic use, the unconstitutional taking standard.” Id. at 281 , 734 A.2d 227 (emphasis added).

52007–2020
Electro-Nucleonics, Inc. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission green
md · 1989
2 sentences

2005Electro-Nucleonics, Inc., 315 Md. at 372 , 554 A.2d at 809 .

2005Electro-Nucleonics, Inc., 315 Md. at 372 , 554 A.2d at 809 .

12005–2005
Strohmeyer v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. green
moctapp · 1965
1 sentence

1976As to the suggested invidious discrimination, see Strohmeyer v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 396 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. App. 1965).

11976–1976

Where else courts name it

MD 7 (1976–2020) CA 6 (2010–2022) TX 5 (2006–2018) CT 4 (1996–2024) GA 4 (2003–2020) ME 3 (1993–2023) NC 3 (2001–2017) WI 3 (2013–2026) IN 2 (2003–2025) AL 2 (1992–1995) PA 2 (1998–2013)

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