Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Recent Development: Assategue Coastal Trust, Inc. V. Schwalbach: An Applicant Must Satisfy The "Unwarranted Hardship" Standard To Be Granted A Variance; The Variance Must Have No Adverse Impact On The Environment And Conform To The Purpose Of The Critical Area Program, Michael Louis Brown
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Worchester County Board properly applied the “unwarranted hardship” standard and correctly granted a variance under local critical area law. Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach, 448 Md. 112, 140, 136 A.3d 866, 882 (2016). The court held that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the environment and the development was in conformity with the Critical Area Program’s purpose and intent. Schwalbach, 448 Md. at 143-44, 136 A.3d at 883.
Recent Development: Hamilton V. Kirson: The Court Of Appeals Of Maryland Held That Circumstantial Evidence Offered To Satisfy The Causation Element Of A Prima Facie Claim Of Negligence In Lead Paint Cases Must Demonstrate A Reasonable Probability, Not Mere Possibility, That The Subject Property Was The Cause Of The Lead Exposure, Matthew Stegman
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held, in two consolidated cases, that circumstantial evidence presented to prove injuries from lead paint exposure was insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation.