Powell v. Calvert County’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County (2008), Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County (2010)
8 federal appellate · 27 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 Marzullo v. Kahl · Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co. · Janda v. General Motors Corp. · Springloch Area Citizens Group v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals · County Council v. District Land Corp.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in order to obtain a ‘vested right’ in the existing zoning use which will be constitutionally protected against a subsequent change in the zoning ordinance prohibiting or limiting that use, the owner must (1) obtain a permit or occupancy certificate where required by the applicable ordinance and (2) must proceed under that permit or certificate to exercise it on the land involved so that the neighborhood may be advised that the land is being devoted to that use.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“obtain a vested right in an existing zoning use that will be protected against a subsequent change in a zoning ordinance prohibiting that use.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have held that a vested right does not come into being until the completion of any litigation involving the zoning ordinance from which the vested light is claimed to have originated. In Ross v. Montgomery County, 252 Md. 497 , 250 A.2d 635 (1969), we stated that: “The appellants have also interposed, as working in their favor, the theory of vested rights. Their contention being that, because of the high price they paid for the land based on its then authorized use for an apartment hotel, then-expenditure for architect’s fees and the cost incurred in site preparation, the zoning regulations which the County seeks to impose have been rendered inoperative. In Mandel v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Howard County, 238 Md. 208 , 208 A.2d 710 (1965), a change in zoning regulations was enacted while litigation was pending in respect to the use of the appellants’ property under the former zoning regulations. The appellants contended that this violated their constitutional rights. Judge Oppenheimer, writing the opinion for this Court stated: ‘ * * * this case is to be determined under the law as it now exists, that the appellants had not secured a final decree establishing their rights to use their properties for the use permitted under the former classification, that they had no vested rights, and that the change in the regulations is not invalid because it eliminates the proposed use.’ Id. at 215 , 208 A.2d 710 . The Court in Mandel aptly termed the right acquired under the permit as”
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.