Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stansbury v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 13, 2002No. 15, Sept. Term, 2002Published

1Dissent

Dissenting opinion by

WILNER, J.,

in which RAKER, J., joins

The Board of Appeals for Anne Arundel County denied a set of fifteen requested variances upon a determination that the need for the variances was self-created by the applicant, Nancy Stansbury. That finding was amply supported by the evidence before the board. Proclaiming the issue to be one of law rather than fact, however, this Court simply weighs the evidence differently and concludes that the need for the variances, as a matter of law, was not self-created. With respect, I dissent from both the conclusion and the analysis employed…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. MATTER OF SASSO v. OsgoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Sciacca v. CarusoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2001
  3. Volpe AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. Marino v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  5. Salisbury Board v. BoundsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965

8 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