Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Rosenberg
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtMcWilliams, J.
In this appeal, stemming from the confrontation of a landowner and the appellant (the Commission), we are asked to consider what is known in Prince George’s County as the “Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.” In- some jurisdictions similar enactments have been called “timing and sequential control” ordinances. They are said by professional planners to be the most important advance in planning and zoning law since Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926). The Commission makes much of the fact that a similar ordinance has received the guarded approval of the Court of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Golden v. Planning Board of RamapoNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Urbana Civic Ass'n v. Urbana Mobile Village, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Silkor Development Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
- Baltimore Planning Commission v. Victor Development Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Goodwich v. NolanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- MD.-NAT'L CAP. P. & P. COMMISSION v. RosenbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- In the Matter of Hon. Pamela J. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2018
- Homes Oil Co. v. Maryland Department of EnvironmentCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Applegate v. CommonwealthRichmond County Circuit Court · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.