Court Opinion

ID: 9702983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:35:45.876713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:44.557672
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, subject only to a few modest differences. Primarily, I do not regard the finding that a taking is for recreational purposes as a pure conclusion of law. See Majority Opinion, op. at 618, 939 A.2d at 338. Rather, I believe that there is a substantial factual dynamic, and therefore, I would treat it as a mixed question of fact and law. I am fully in line, however, with the majority’s central conclusion that a more concrete plan is required to support a taking for recreational purposes than was put into place in this case, at least as reflected in the record presented.
Justice BALDWIN joins this concurring opinion.