Skip to main content
· 10/30/2009

Zimmerman v. Board of County Commissioners

Citations

  • 218 P.3d 400
  • 289 Kan. 926
  • 2009 Kan. LEXIS 1073

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that zoning authorities may consider aesthetics in zoning decisions and that some considerations may outweigh other Golden factors
  • explaining that a zoning authority may weigh a factor such as aesthetics more heavily than other factors
  • noting that appellant bears the burden of establishing unreasonableness of the zoning board’s action
  • statutoiy interpretation is a question of law; appellate court not bound by district court interpretation
  • cities’ and coun ties’ power to change zoning of property ‘ “can only be exercised in conformity with the statute which authorizes the zoning” ’
  • \An appellate court merely interprets the language as it appears; it is not free to speculate and cannot read into the statute language not readily found there.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nuss

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.