Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Smallwood

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 17, 1992No. 71 & 72, September Term, 1990Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChasanow, Judge

The issue decided by the trial courts in the instant case was whether the proposed cap amendments violate Article *251XI-A of the Maryland Constitution. The courts below answered that question in the affirmative, and this Court reverses that determination. I concur in Parts I through III of the Court’s opinion.

In Part IV, the majority coins the pejorative phrases— “roll backs” and “escape clauses”—and decides that roll backs as well as escape clauses violate a section of the Tax-Property Article and are therefore void. The majority goes on to rewrite the amendments petitioned for by over 20,000…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Schneider v. LansdaleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
  2. Anne Arundel County v. McDonoughCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  3. Rivergate Rest. Corp. v. METRO. DADE CTY.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
  4. City of Takoma Park v. Citizens for Decent GovernmentCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1984
  5. Cassese v. City Clerk of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1966

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API