Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 Md. App. 43 - Boyce v. Sembly

25 Md. App. 43 - Boyce v. Sembly’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
December 2002
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2002

24 state decisions

1101975198019902000decided

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 Wakefield v. Kraft · Offutt v. Board of Zoning Appeals · Hoffman v. Mayor of Baltimore · 3 Md. App. 340 - Terrell v. State · 23 Md. App. 612 - Anderson v. Sawyer

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"[I]t is necessary to understand the inherent nature of the terms 'mistake’ ór 'error’ as they are used in zoning law. A perusal of cases, particularly those in which a finding of error was upheld, indicates that the presumption of validity accorded to a comprehensive zoning is overcome and error or mistake is established when there is probative evidence to show that the assumptions or premises relied upon by the Council at the time of the comprehensive rezoning were invalid. Error can be established by showing that at the time of the comprehensive zoning the Council failed to take into account then existing facts, or projects or trends which were reasonably foreseeable of fruition in the future, so that the Council’s action was premised initially on a misapprehension. Bonnie View Club v. Glass, 242 Md. 46, 52-53 , 217 A.2d 647, 651 (1966);. Jobar Corp. v. Rodgers Forge Community Ass’n., 236 Md. 106, 112, 116-18, 121-22 , 202 A.2d 612, 615, 617-18, 620-21 (1964); Overton v. County Commissioners, 225 Md. 212, 216-17, 170 A.2d 172, 174-76 (1961); see Rohde v. County Board of Appeals, 234 Md. 259, 267-68 , 199 A.2d 216, 218-19 (1964). Error or mistake may also be established by showing that events occurring subsequent to the comprehensive zoning have proven that the Council’s initial premises were incorrect. As the Court of Appeals said in Rockville v. Stone, 271 Md. 655, 662 , 319 A.2d 536, 541 (1974): 'On the question of original mistake, this Court has held that when the assu”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1. There was a mistake in the comprehensive zoning map, or that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent that the zoning map should be changed; and 2. The reclassification conforms to the approved Anne Arundel County General Development Plan in relation to land use, number of dwelling units or type and intensity of nonresidential buildings, and location; and 3. Transportation facilities, water and sewerage systems, storm drainage systems, schools and fire suppression facilities adequate, as defined in section 13-133, to serve the uses allowed by reclassification are either existing or programmed for construction; and 4. There is compatibility between the uses of the property as reclassified and the surrounding land uses, so as to promote the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the county.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “‘It is now firmly established that there is a strong presumption of the correctness of original zoning and of comprehensive rezoning, and that to sustain a piecemeal change therefrom there must be produced strong evidence of mistake in the original zoning or comprehensive rezoning or else evidence of substantial change in the character of the neighborhood .... And, of course, the burden of proof facing one seeking a zoning reclassification is quite onerous.’”
    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.