Freeman v. Department of Social & Health Services

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “in assessing whether a landowner’s reliance upon municipal inaction is reasonable, a landowner is duty bound to check the property’s zoning status”
• listing cases where municipalities took affirmative steps which resulted in a finding of estoppel
• property owner cannot acquire right to a variance by estoppel through actions or representations of someone who does not speak for the municipality
• “In order to establish that he acted in good faith, a property owner is required to (Footnote continued on next page…) 13 of Fact No. 33.
• even where municipality had notice of zoning violations for seven years, it nevertheless took no affirmative actions that would constitute “active acquiescence,” which defeated variance by estoppel theory
• for a variance by estoppel, an owner must establish each element of a four factor test by clear and concise evidence; the first factor is a long period of municipal failure to enforce the law when the municipality knew or should have known of the violation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).