Legal Opinion

Urban Site Venture II Ltd. Partnership v. Levering Associates Ltd. Partnership

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 13, 1995No. 43PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in requiring that, in a building encroachment case, “compelling evidence” is necessary to establish innocent mistake under the doctrine of comparative hardship. We hold that a defendant in an encroachment case who seeks to avoid injunctive relief through the doctrine of comparative hardship must prove innocent mistake by a preponderance of the evidence.

I

Levering Associates Limited Partnership (“Levering”), owns an office building and concrete driveway located at 6-14 South Gay Street in Baltimore City.…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. ZenobiaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  2. State Insurance Commissioner v. National Bureau of Casualty UnderwritersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
  3. Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System v. Mayor of Baltimore CityCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  4. Hasselbring v. KoepkeMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Wills v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Community Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. Grace v. KochOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Bd. of County Commissioners of Garrett Cty. v. Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  4. City of Bowie v. MIE, Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  5. Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Utica Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999

22 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