Hewitt v. County Commissioners’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 district · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc. (1977), Stevens v. City of Salisbury (1965)
2 district · 75 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Cassel v. Mayor of Baltimore · Mayor of Baltimore v. Biermann · Temmink v. Board of Zoning Appeals · Offutt v. Board of Zoning Appeals · Huff v. Board of Zoning Appeals
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We do not think the statutory language could be construed as requiring the County Commissioners to state in advance (what they could hardly know) the exact nature of any action which they might take with regard to matters brought to their attention at the contemplated hearing. Indeed, it is difficult to see how (without either prejudgment or prophecy) the notice here given could have been much more explicit or informative than it was. The appellants certainly had no right to assume that the legislative body entrusted with the sole power to enact a comprehensive zoning or rezoning ordinance in Baltimore County was bound to adopt the proposals or recommendations submitted by the Zoning Commissioner.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Where a zoning ordinance or an amendment puts a small area in a zone different from that of the surrounding area, we have what may be called “spot zoning”, using the term in a descriptive sense. Such zoning may be invalid or valid. If it is an arbitrary and unreasonable devotion of the small area to a use inconsistent vuith the uses to which the rest of tlie district is restricted and made for the sole benefit of the private interests of the owner, it is invalid. Cassel v. City of Baltimore, 195 Md. 348, 355 . On the other hand, if the zoning of the small parcel is in accord and in harmony with the comprehensive zoning plan and is done for the public good — that is, to serve one or more of the purposes of the enabling statute, and so bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, it is valid. Offutt v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 204 Md. 551, 561 ; Temmink v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 205 Md. 489 , 495 ; Ellicott v. City of Baltimore, 180 Md. 176, 183 ; Cassel v. City of Baltimore, supra.' ” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Minor v. Shifflett““In Huff v. Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, 214 Md. at p. 52, we said that ‘[t]he County Commissioners determined in 1954 [Ordinance passed in 1955] to rezone the whole of Baltimore County.’ In Fuller v. County Commissioners, supra, [ 204 Md. 168 ] we did not draw a distinction between zoning and rezoning. In the present case, although the action of the County Commissioners would appear to be (as stated in the Huff case) rezoning, rather than zoning, we think that the same result would be reached in either aspect of the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.