Miklus v. Zoning Board of Appeals

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the board considered “[t]he application as presented to the board” and that the board “is not required to anticipate that the applicant would later violate the zoning regulations by a use not authorized”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).