DuBay v. Crane’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals (1967), Medical Waste Associates, Inc. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc. (1992)
2 district · 88 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 Marcus v. Montgomery County Council · Pattison v. Corby · Toomey v. Gomeringer · Loughborough Development Corp. v. Rivermass Corp. · City of Greenbelt v. Jaeger
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In zoning cases, the rule in this State is that for a person to be aggrieved by an adverse decision of the administrative agency, and thus entitled to appeal to the courts, the decision must not only affect a matter in which the protestant has a specific interest or property right but his interest therein must be such that he is personally and specially affected in a way different from that suffered by the public generally. See Loughborough v. Rivermass, 213 Md. 239 , 131 A. 2d 461 (1957); Pattison v. Corby, 226 Md. 97 , 172 A. 2d 490 (1961); Toomey v. Gomeringer, 235 Md. 456 , 201 A. 2d 842 (1964); Marcus v. Montgomery County Council, 235 Md. 535 , 201 A. 2d 777 (1964); and City of Greenbelt v. Jaeger, 237 Md. 456 , 206 A. 2d 694 (1965).” Id. at 185.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * but it is not necessary to be both a party to the proceeding before the board of appeals and a ‘person aggrieved’ by its decision in order to appeal to the circuit court. This, in addition to showing the proximity of one property to the other, requires proof of the adverse effect the changed status of the .rezoned property has, or could have, or: the use, enjoyment and value of the; property of the protestant in order to establish the status of the appellant, - as an aggrieved person. Rathkopt, The Law of Zoning and Planning (1956, Supp.1964), Ch. 63, at pp. 23, 24. * * * ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The [protestants'] property is on the opposite side of the Beltway, and, in DuBay , we pointed out ..., the Beltway 'if not a complete shield against the apartments to be constructed, will serve as an adequate barrier.’ It is true that, in that case, the property was 1500 feet from the rezoned property, and it was not shown that Dubay could see the reclassified property from his home, but it was the existence of the broad, heavily traveled intervening Beltway which was the determining factor." (Emphasis added).”
3 later decisions 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.