Hardesty v. Dunphy’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
1 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Wilhelm v. State (1974), Woods v. State (1989)
1 district · 84 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 Wakefield v. Kraft · Cassel v. Mayor of Baltimore · Jobar Corp. v. Rodgers Forge Community Ass'n · Chapman v. Montgomery County Council · Bosley v. Hospital for Consumptives of Maryland
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... Where the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment is to change the zoning classification, the local legislative body shall make findings of fact in each specific case including, but not limited to, the following matters; population change, availability of public facilities, present and future transportation patterns, compatability with existing and proposed development for the area, the recommendation of the planning commission, and the relationship of such proposed amendment to the jurisdiction's plan; and may grant the amendment based upon a finding that there was a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood where the property is located or that there was a mistake in the existing zoning classification." (Emphasis supplied).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Even if we accept the Board’s implicit conclusion that the distance to the presently existing shopping centers is unreasonable, in the passage quoted from Miller v. Abrahams, [ 257 Md. 126 , 262 A. 2d 524 (1970)], it is abundantly clear that Cassell [v. City of Baltimore, 195 Md. 348, 355, 356 , 73 A. 2d 486 (1950)], the seminal case in this area, does not represent the proposition that need can serve as a substitute for change or mistake. In all individual applications for reclassification, there must first be a finding of substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or mistake in the comprehensive plan. Yet this finding alone ‘merely permits the legislative body to grant the requested rezoning but does not require it to do so.’ Messenger v. Board of County Commissioners, [ 259 Md. 693 , 271 A. 2d 172 (1970)]. It is then that the factor of need can play a significant role, for if there is no need whatsoever the rezoning might be arbitrary and capricious, see Wakefield, v. Kraft, 202 Md. 136, 157 , 96 A. 2d 27 (1953) (Sobeloff, C.J., dissenting) or, as is normally the case, the factor of need would be a ‘debatable question’ to be weighed with other elements in determining the desirability of the rezoning. If there has not been a legally sufficient change or mistake, regional comprehensive rezoning is the only method available to provide for the needs of a nascent residential community.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 725.”
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.