Harford County v. Earl E. Preston, Jr., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the agency violated the findings requirement of the Harford County Zoning Code
• noting that the Schultz v. Pritts test applies “with respect to a given factor” (quoting Gotach Ctr. for Health v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Frederick County, 60 Md.App. 477, 484-85, 483 A.2d 786, 790 (1984))
• noting that the Schultz v. Pritts test applies \with respect to a given factor\ (quoting Gotach Ctr. for Health v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Frederick County, 60 Md.App. 477, 484-85, 483 A.2d 786, 790 (1984))
• noting that a charter county was “authorized to divide the county into use districts and to determine which uses would be permitted within each district as a matter of right (permitted uses) and which uses would only be permitted under certain conditions (special exceptions)”
• noting that a charter county was \authorized to divide the county into use districts and to determine which uses would be permitted within each district as a matter of right (permitted uses) and which uses would only be permitted under certain conditions (special exceptions)\
• this requirement recognizes that a party to an administrative proceeding is entitled to be apprised of the facts relied upon by the agency and permits meaningful judicial review of those findings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).