Access and Review State & Federal Legal Cases
The principals and partners at Levin & Gann review several cases and outcomes every month and strive to feature the most pertinent case and decision information on our website. Some of these cases may relate directly to situations you are involved in or are considering. These cases may involve criminal law, custody, divorce, DUI defense, family law, medical malpractice, personal injury, and workers' compensation. So, take a few moments to look over our most recent postings. For the most current information, make sure to contact Levin & Gann directly by calling 410.321.0600 or filling out our confidential contact form on this website.
ART WOOD ENTERPRISES
v.
WISEBURG COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
No. 1782, September Term, 1990
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Citizens' community group challenged decision of County Board of Appeals affirming approval of development plan by county review group. The Circuit Court, Baltimore County, Alfred L. Brennan, Sr., J., found that approval of plan was not authorized and remanded. Appeal was taken. The Court of Special Appeals, Harrell, J., held that: (1) county review group's approval of plan was not conditional, even though group would consider further evidence concerning plan; (2) group's final action to approve plan was not taken in closed meeting in violation of open meeting law; and (3) county review group was not required to refer plan to county planning board. Read Full Case >
DOROTHY SURINA, ET AL.
v.
LONG GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATION, INC., IT AL.
No. 1348, September Term, 2005
Unreported in the Court of Special Appeals In this alleged "cross-over zoning" dispute, we must decide whether a stormwater managment pond designed to serve new homes developed on property zoned R.C.5 (Rural-Residential) can be located on adjacent property zoned R.C.2 (Rural-Agricultural). The Circuit Court for Baltimore County reversed the Baltimore County Board of Appeals' approval of subdivision plans that place a stormwater management (SWM) system on R.C.2 land, thereby making it possible to develop the adjacent R.C.5 land. We agree with the Board that there is no zoning impediment to such plans. Read Full Case > |
