Court Opinion

ID: 9935562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:56:16.434488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:07.359441
License: Public Domain

At some point a balance must be struck between annoyance and inconvenience to one who lives near a quarry and the right of the quarry owner to do business, but a striking of that balance is a function of the legislature. Finley v. Teeter Stone, Inc.,251 Md. 428, 248 A.2d 106 (1968).
It is quite possible that the rule stated in Sloss I and II
no longer serves the public good, but if the rule stated in those two prior cases of this Court does not strike a proper balance between the competing interests, a remedy lies with the legislature where the rights, duties and societal interests of those affected could be fully considered and evaluated.
TORBERT, C.J., concurs.