Armstrong v. Mayor of Baltimore

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an ordinance authorizing a conditional use was “adjudicative in nature” because “[t]he focus of the hearing was on a single piece of property and the effect of its development on surrounding properties”
• holding that a committee of the Baltimore City Council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it held a hearing, received oral testimony from community members, and engaged in fact-intensive consideration of a specific property
• considering moot issue of whether City Council action would have been subject to judicial review as “zoning action,” “so that all interested persons will know what procedural avenue for seeking judicial review is applicable in a given situation”
• “[T]he final question before reaching a conclusion, is whether ‘zoning action’ is limited to reclassifications. We conclude it is not ____”
• “[T]he first question we must resolve is whether ... the City Council was acting in a quasi-judicial, or administrative capacity, rather than in a legislative one.”
• “When uncertain, practitioners sometimes file two actions, one seeking statutory review and the other seeking non-statutory review, because if they file one action and are wrong, a court may not treat the action as if it had asserted the proper basis for review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).