Clayman v. Prince George’s County
Maryland Court of Appeals
266 Md. 409, 292 A.2d 689 (1972)
Facts
R. Warren Amman applied to have a 6.35-acre parcel of land in Prince George’s County (the county) (defendant) rezoned from rural residential to general commercial for the purpose of building a shopping center. The county’s technical staff recommended that Amman’s application be denied because rezoning the property would be contrary to the county’s existing general zoning plan. The county’s district council disagreed and granted Amman’s rezoning application, finding that: (1) the neighborhood of Amman’s property was the surrounding 51.6-square-mile market area of the proposed shopping center, (2) the neighborhood had increased in density and urbanization, (3) traffic had increased, (4) there were plans to widen or lengthen local roads, (5) sewage service had been made available to new subdivisions in the neighborhood, and (6) there was a need for a shopping center in the area. Based on these findings, the district council concluded that commercial use of Amman’s property was justified because the character of the neighborhood had substantially changed. Lee Clayman (plaintiff) sought judicial review by the trial court, which affirmed the district council’s decision. Clayman then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, arguing that there had not been a substantial change in conditions in the neighborhood of Amman’s property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barnes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
