Colby v. York County Commissioners

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because affiant failed to state he was present at the hearing described in the affidavit, personal knowledge was not obvious, and thus affidavit was legally insufficient under Rule 56
• concluding claims based on commissioner's failure to hold a hearing, excluding evidence, and reliance on an improper standard could be adequately reviewed by the court pursuant to Rule 80B procedure
• holding an ordinance that allows for direct appeal is intended as an exclusive remedy
• affirming trial court's ruling that rule 80B appeal was untimely because it was not filed within thirty days after notice of the decision
• “[I]n the present circumstance where the action is filed after the expiration of thirty days, the existence of an independent basis for judicial intervention or an exception to the exclusivity of direct review is crucial.”
• “[I]n the present circumstance where the action is filed after the expiration of thirty days, the existence of an independent basis for judicial intervention or an exception to the exclusivity of direct review is crucial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).