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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re Nehemiah Associates, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Nehemiah Associates, Inc. Anchor | green | “assist in assessing the competing policies of flexibility and finality in the permitting process.” | 6 |
| 2 | In Re Stowe Club Highlands | green | “changes in the construction or operation of the permittee's project, not reasonably foreseeable at the time the permit was issued” | 5 |
| 3 | In Re Stowe Club Highlands | green | “(a) changes in factual or regulatory circumstances beyond the control of a permittee; (b) changes in the construction or operation of the permittee's project, not reasonably foreseeable at the time the permit was issued; or (c) changes in technology.” | 4 |
| 4 | In Re Armitage | green | “in the interest of finality and judicial economy” | 3 |
| 5 | In Re Appeal of Department of Buildings & General Services | green | “to limit zoning disputes to a well-defined procedure and to provide finality at the end of the proceedings.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.