Goldman v. Crowther
Maryland Court of Appeals
147 Md. 282, 128 A. 50, 38 A.L.R. 1455 (1925)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Daniel Goldman and his wife (plaintiffs) owned a house in an area of Baltimore City classified as a residence district under Baltimore City’s zoning ordinance. The Baltimore City zoning ordinance subjected all land in the city to certain restrictions. The zoning ordinance created residence districts where land or buildings could only be used for one of 15 specified uses. The restrictions were largely arbitrary and served solely aesthetic purposes. In 1923, Goldman began using the basement of the four-story house for a business of repairing used clothes. Goldman did not believe a permit was required for this use. Eventually, Goldman was informed that a permit was necessary and that he was violating certain ordinances by operating without one. Goldman was arrested. While the complaint against him was pending, Goldman applied to the inspector of buildings of Baltimore City (the inspector) (defendant) for a permit to use the house for his repair business. The inspector refused to grant the permit and claimed that he was compelled under the zoning law to deny applications for such a use of property in a residence district. Goldman filed a petition in the trial court requesting a writ of mandamus to be issued against the inspector, directing the inspector to issue Goldman’s permit. The trial court found in favor of the inspector, and Goldman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Offutt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.