Baker v. Connell’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2019
18 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 Levitt v. Bouvier · Pollard v. Zoning Board of Appeals · Searles v. Darling · In Re the Application of Emmett S. Hickman Co. · Leimann v. Board of Adjustment, Cranford Tp.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1.The variance sought will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. Owing to special conditions or exceptional situation, a literal interpretation of the provisions of any zoning code or regulation at issue will result in unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the owner of the property. 3. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the zoning code or regulation provision at issue shall be fully observed and substantial justice done. 4. Such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of any zoning code, regulation or map. B. All case law that has developed, and continues to develop, interpreting 9 Del. C. §§ 1352 shall be adhered to by the Board of Adjustment UDC § 40.31.451”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[F]inancial return ... alone, never justifies a variance. As to the unique character of the land, the mere fact that it sits entirely within the 0-1 zone does not make it unique. There is no evidence that this lot is the only one of its type in Rehoboth. Nor does it become unique because it adjoins the R-2 zone containing multi-family units.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cromwell v. Ward“(a) the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the permitted use, (b) need for the variance is due to unique circumstances and not general conditions in the neighborhood which reflect unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself, and (c) the use sought will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.