You are viewing an archived code
Notes
| [Note] | Editor’s note-Section 59-H-6 [formerly §11-48] is interpreted in Montgomery County v. National Capital Realty Corporation, 267 Md. 364, 297 A.2d 675 (1972); is cited in Aspen Hill Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 265 Md. 303, 289 A.2d 303 (1972); is quoted in Hoyert v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, 262 Md. 667, 278 A.2d 588 (1971); is interpreted in Norbeck Village Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 254 Md. 59, 254 A.2d 700 (1969); is quoted and interpreted as invalid in Carl M. Freeman Associates v. State Roads Commission, 252 Md. 319, 250 A.2d 250 (1969); and is quoted in Hilland v. Montgomery County Council, 247 Md. 570, 233 A.2d 783 (1967). Section 59-H-6 [formerly §111-48(f)] is discussed in State Roads Commission v. Kamins, 82 Md.App. 552, 572 A.2d 1132 (1990). Section 59-H-6 [formerly §§59-204 to 59-207] is discussed in Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 376 A.2d 483 (1977). Section 59-H-6 [formerly §59-207(a)] is cited in Kanfer v. Montgomery County Council, 35 Md.App. 715, 373 A.2d 5 (1977). Section 59-H-6 [formerly §104-40] is quoted in Montgomery County Council v. Kaslow. 235 Md. 45, 200 A.2d 184 (1964). |