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.
6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gowl v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences2008Gowl, 27 Md.App. at 417-18 , 341 A.2d at 836 . 1984In reviewing that determination, we said, at 417-18, 341 A.2d 832 that “[w]here ... the potential volume of traffic under the requested use would appear to be no greater than that which would arise from permitted uses, we believe it arbitrary, capricious and illegal to deny the application for special exception on vehicular traffic grounds.” The comparison, then, under Gowl , as to traffic, was whether the proposed use would create conditions worse than any use permitted without special exception. | 3 | 1981–2008 |
Kitchen v. Himelfarb
neutral
2 sentences2017As a preliminary matter, we are not persuaded by Willow Grove's argument that "[t]he acts of a corporation doing business in the State of Maryland without legal consent are void." In support of this argument, Willow Grove cites Kitchen v. Himelfarb , 254 Md. 372 , 376, 254 A.2d 694 (1969), for the proposition that an unregistered corporation is a non-entity. 2017As a preliminary matter, we are not persuaded by Willow Grove's argument that "[t]he acts of a corporation doing business in the State of Maryland without legal consent are void." In support of this argument, Willow Grove cites Kitchen v. Himelfarb , 254 Md. 372 , 376, 254 A.2d 694 (1969), for the proposition that an unregistered corporation is a non-entity. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Montgomery County v. Butler
green
1 sentence2011In light of Butler , when a zoning authority is determining whether to grant or deny an application for special exception, it must identify the relevant zoning ordinance and analyze whether it “is silent on matters to which Schultz and its progeny speak....” Id. at 306, 9 A.3d 824 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Evans v. Shore Communications, Inc.
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 305, 685 A.2d 454 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.