Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Guns, 269 A.2d 833 (Md. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Guns, 269 A.2d 833 (Md. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Leisure Campground & Country Club Ltd. Partnership v. Leisure Estates (md, 1977-05-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leisure Campground & Country Club Ltd. Partnership v. Leisure Estates
Md. · 1977 · confidence medium
This Court recently expressed its views in Martin v. Michaels, 259 Md. 346, 349-50 , 269 A. 2d 833, 835 (1970), as to the specificity required before a bill for specific performance can be successfully maintained: [T]he description [of the land in the contract must] be such as to enable the court to determine with certainty, with the aid of such extrinsic evidence as is admissible under the rules of evidence, what property was intended by the parties to be covered thereby.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boyd v. MERC.-SAFE DEP. & TRUST CO.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
See Kiser v. Eberly, 200 Md. 242, 248 , 88 A.2d 570, 571, 573 (1952). [6] Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton Land Co., 225 Md. 433, 454-55 , 171 A.2d 736, 745-46 (1961); Brooks v. Towson Realty, Inc., 223 Md. 61, 73-74 , 162 A.2d 431, 437-38 (1960); Restatement of Contracts, § 359 (2). [7] Westpark, Inc., supra, at 225 Md. 455 , 171 A.2d 746 ; Diggs v. Siomporas, 248 Md. 677, 681 , 237 A.2d 725, 727 (1968); Improvement Co. v. Boyd, 161 Md. 269, 276-78 , 156 A. 795, 797-98 (1931); Foley v. Crow, 37 Md. 51, 60-63 (1872). [8] Martin v. Michaels, 259 Md. 346, 352-53 , 269 A.2d 833, 837 (1970); Westpark, su…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Boyd v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Martin v. Michaels, 259 Md. 346, 352-53 , 269 A. 2d 833, 837 (1970); Westpark, supra, at 225 Md. 454 -55, 171 A. 2d 745 -46. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance
Md. · 1973 · confidence medium
Although neither Allstate nor Aetna filed any motion to dismiss the respective appeals upon the possible ground that the Commissioner was not given the right to appeal from an adverse decision of the Baltimore City Court, and the point was not considered in the briefs of any of the parties, the Court has grave doubts that such a right of appeal exists, cf., e.g., Board of Zoning Appeals for the Town of Elkton v. Guns, 259 Md. 368 , 269 A. 2d 833 *445 (1970); Subsequent Injury Fund v. Pack, 250 Md. 306, 310 , 242 A. 2d 506, 509 (1968); Roeder v. Brown, 192 Md. 639 , 65 A. 2d 333 (1949); and Zon…
cited Cited "see" Lewis v. Hughes
Md. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Martin v. Michaels, 259 Md. 346, 348-49 , 269 A. 2d 833 (1970) (citing cases); cf. R.E.C.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Deleon Enterprises, Inc. v. Zaino
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Martin v. Michaels, 259 Md. 346, 349-50 , 269 A.2d 833 (1970).
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE TOWN OF ELKTON
v.
GUNS Et Al.
[No. 69, September Term, 1970.].
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Oct 21, 1970.
269 A.2d 833
Leonard E. Wilson for appellant., Court did not hear argument for appellees. Leonard H. Lockhart and Baker, Lockhart, Russell & Herman, Hyman Ginsberg and Ginsberg & Ginsberg on the brief.
Hammond, Barnes, Finan, Singley, Digges.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Elkton alone has appealed from an order of the Circuit Court for Cecil County (which had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter) reversing an action of the Board on a zoning application. We conclude that the Board has no interest or right that would give it standing to ap[*369] peal. The statute which creates it gives it none. The case is indistinguishable from Zoning Appeals Board v. McKinney, 174 Md. 551, 564, where it was said:

“Since therefore the Board [of Zoning Appeals] * * * has no interest in [the appeal] different from that which any judicial or quasi judicial agency would have, which is to decide the cases coming before it fairly and impartially, [it] is in no sense aggrieved by the decision of the Baltimore City Court [overruling its decision] .”

See also Mayor & C. C. of Balto. v. Shapiro, 187 Md. 623; Roeder v. Brown, 192 Md. 639; Maryland Board of Pharmacy v. Peco, Inc., 234 Md. 200; Liquor License Board v. Leone, 249 Md. 263; Subsequent Injury Fund v. Pack, 250 Md. 306.

Appeal dismissed, costs to be paid by appellant.