Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/78437805-In-the-court-of-appeals-of-maryland-nos-20-21-22-september-term-jack-gresser-et-ux-v-anne-arundel-county-maryland.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:29:33+00:00

Document:
Download "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Nos. 20, 21 & 22. September Term, JACK GRESSER et ux. v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND"
1 Jack Gresser et ux. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland - No. 20, 1997 Term; Annapolis Road, Ltd. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland -No. 21, 1997 Term; Annapolis Road Ltd. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland - No. 22, 1997 Term SUMMARY JUDGMENT Appellate court should ordinarily not affirm summary judgments on grounds not ruled on by the trial judge and parties should have an opportunity to develop the record and present their arguments to the trial court.
6 -4- conditions were imposed on the location of those operations in the C4 and W3 districts, namely: (1) they had to be at least 1,000 feet from the boundary line of any dwelling, library, park, school, playground, child care center, church or other place of worship, or other adult bookstore or adult motion picture theater; (2) all windows, doors, and other apertures had to be blackened or obstructed to prevent persons on the outside from viewing the interior; (3) the proprietor, owner, and employees were required to prohibit access by anyone under 18 years of age; (4) if the business was an adult motion picture theater, it was not to be used for the display of obscene films or other performances; and (5) if it was an adult motion picture theater, it had to have the off-street parking required for theaters generally. Any existing adult bookstore or adult motion picture theater that would not be in compliance with the new requirements was allowed to continue as a nonconforming use for one year after notice from the Office of Planning and Zoning. By Bill No , enacted and signed into law on December 8, 1992, that period was reduced to six months. ARL chose not to apply for the newly authorized Class Y license but instead reopened its store without a license. On December 4, 1992, after discovering that the business had been reopened, the county filed suit against ARL, contending that it was operating an adult film arcade without a Class Y license. It asked that the operation be enjoined until the license was obtained. The court entered an ex parte injunction, followed, on December 18, 1992, by an interlocutory injunction, restraining ARL and its employee from operating an adult film arcade and motion picture theater.
13 -11- not decided by the trial judge, and the parties should have further opportunity to develop the record and present their arguments in the trial court. For example, one of the ordinances at issue, County Code Art. 28, 3-403, classifies adult bookstores and adult motion picture theaters as conditional uses in the C4-Highway Commercial District and the W3-Heavy Industrial District. The County apparently has no written or established procedures for obtaining approval of a conditional use. The Court of Special Appeals noted this and stated it is not clear to us what the actual process is for obtaining approval as a conditional use. There are extensive provisions relating to the procedure for obtaining a special exception, but the zoning law is silent with respect to conditional use approval. Annapolis Road, 113 Md. App. at , 686 A.2d at 741. This amorphous administrative procedure is coupled with the requirement that an adult motion picture theater was not to be used for the display of obscene films or other performances. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the county that condition four was an objective condition and that the issuance of a zoning certificate of use was simply a ministerial act. If the applicant s use is authorized by the zoning ordinance if the facility is in a C4 or W3 zone and the five objective conditions are satisfied the certificate must be granted. Annapolis Road, 113 Md. App. at 134, 686 A.2d at 742. The intermediate appellate court may not have considered that in deciding whether a theater is displaying an obscene film for the purposes of satisfying condition four, a county official might be given discretion to determine what is obscene and on the basis of that determination deny a conditional use certificate. Such a grant of discretion might be unconstitutional. C.f. Jakanna v.
14 -12- Montgomery County, 344 Md. 584, , 689 A.2d 65, 72 (1997). We should have a record clearly establishing whether there is any discretion given to a county official to decide not to issue a conditional use permit because in his or her opinion condition four is not met. Without expressing any opinion on the validity of the ordinances or the issues raised by petitioners, we shall vacate the injunction since the only grounds articulated for granting summary judgment and issuing an injunction against the petitioners are conceded and found to be erroneous, and we shall remand the case to the intermediate appellate court with instructions to remand to the trial court for a full hearing on the constitutionality of the ordinances and whether an injunction should be issued. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO VACATE THE INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND REMAND THIS CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 8. September Term, 1995 COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY WASHINGTON RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IMPOSED PASSED CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER.
No. 84, September Term, 1995 City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland [Whether, Between 1970 And 1992, Anne Arundel County Unlawfully Withheld State Tobacco Tax Revenue From The City of Annapolis.
Douglas M. Armstrong, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., No. 107, September Term, 2008.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 4, 2005 Session CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. ENTERTAINMENT RESOURCES, LLC. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Chancery Court for Knox County No.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1561 September Term, 2012 DONALD CONNOR, JR. v. STATE of MARYLAND Krauser, C.J. Woodward, Sharer, J. Frederick (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
CHAPTER 11B. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS. Permits required prohibitions. Adult entertainment establishment regulatory permit required.
Sec. 11B-1 CHAPTER 11B. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS. Sec. 11B-1. Sec. 11B-2. Sec. 11B-3. Sec. 11B-4. Sec. 11B-5. Sec. 11B-6. Sec. 11B-7. Sec. 11B-8. Sec. 11B-9 Sec. 11B-10. Sec. 11B-11. Sec. 11B-12.
Bell, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Raker Wilner Karwacki (retired, specially assigned) JJ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 131 September Term, 1996 VINCENT TITO GRECO, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND Bell, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Raker Wilner Karwacki (retired, specially assigned) JJ.
Deferential Review of an Administrative Agency's Decision in Federal District Court: International College of Surgeons v.
Supreme Court of California 17 Cal. 3d 42 (1976) RICHARDSON, J.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 PHILEMON SWEENEY, ET AL. BRIAN E. FROSH, ET AL.
No In the Supreme Court of the United States TORREY DALE GRADY, Petitioner, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, JOHN GARY BOWERS et ux. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Trevon Sykes - Petitioner. vs. United State of America - Respondent.
This case involves Maryland s Domestic Violence Act, Maryland 1 Code, 4-501 through 4-516 of the Family Law Article. Section 4-504 authorizes a person eligible for relief to petition for a protective order.
HEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict A jury verdict, where the jury was not polled and the verdict was not hearkened, is not properly recorded and is therefore a nullity.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 28
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.