Williamsport v. Sanitary District

10 Citing cases

  1. Maryland Waste v. Department

    84 Md. App. 544 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    In Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc. v. Maryland Department of the Environment, 84 Md. App. 544, 581 A.2d 60 (1990), rev'd on other grounds sub nom., Medical Waste Assoc. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc., 327 Md. 596, 622, 612 A.2d 241 (1992), an environmental association brought suit against the Maryland Department of the Environment in response to its issuance of two permits to Medical Waste Associates, Inc., to construct and operate an infectious medical waste incinerator.

    The Coalition argues that the issuance of a permit is an order and thus the circuit court has jurisdiction to review the Department's action. Although the Coalition concedes that the statute does not define "order," it maintains that, by implication, Williamsport v. Washington County Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 231 A.2d 40 (1967), Jett v. Department of the Environment, 77 Md. App. 503, 551 A.2d 139 (1989), and Howard County v. Davidsonville Area Civic Association, 72 Md. App. 19, 527 A.2d 772, cert. denied, 311 Md. 286, 533 A.2d 1308 (1987), have held that the issuance of a permit is an order of the Secretary. We disagree.

  2. Bowling v. Brown

    57 Md. App. 248 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984)   Cited 7 times
    Allowing fees “where a common fund, benefitting the public, has been created as a result of litigation”

    * * * * * * Defendants argue that the test to be applied by the Court on the public purpose issue is that set forth in Williamsport v. Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 231 A.2d 40, 44 (1967): In reviewing the Town's action, it is only necessary that the legislative determination to spend a particular amount of public funds be reasonable and based on an honest judgment of those officials charged with care of the public purse that the expenditure is for the best interests of the city.

  3. Maryland Cl. Emp. Ass'n v. Anderson

    281 Md. 496 (Md. 1977)   Cited 31 times
    In Anderson, the County and a union could not agree on the percentage increase in salaries to be given to employees for fiscal year 1975.

    To like effect are State v. Kirkley, 29 Md. 85, 110-111 (1869) and Baltimore v. Eschbach, 18 Md. 276, 282-283 (1862). Appellees also cite Williamsport v. Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 231 A.2d 40 (1967); Lipsitz v. Parr, 164 Md. 222, 164 A. 743 (1933); and Baldwin v. Trimble, 85 Md. 396, 37 A. 176 (1897), with the signal "cf." but without an explanatory parenthetical.

  4. Reyes v. Prince George's County

    281 Md. 279 (Md. 1977)   Cited 112 times
    Finding employment of 400 persons as part of public purpose in approving revenue bond refinancing of obligations of private partnership that owned arena

    Id. at 19 [857]. "[T]he line of demarcation is not immutable or incapable of adjustment to changing social and economic conditions that are properly of public and governmental concern." Id. at 16 [855]; see also Pr. George's Co. v. Collington, 275 Md. 171, 190, 339 A.2d 278, 288 (1975); Williamsport v. Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 331-32, 231 A.2d 40, 43-44 (1967); Lerch v. Md. Port Authority, 240 Md. 438, 214 A.2d 761 (1965); Finan v. M. C.C. of Cumberland, 154 Md. 563, 141 A. 269 (1928); 56 Am.Jur.2d Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions § 533 (1971). The parties have stipulated that since its completion in December 1973 the arena has made the following payments to state and local governments:

  5. City of Baltimore v. Crane

    277 Md. 198 (Md. 1976)   Cited 20 times
    In Crane, the Court of Appeals identified a narrow set of circumstances in which a municipality is estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance by virtue of a prior agreement with a property owner.

    The Cranes' rights were contractual and became vested by their conveyance as solidly as if they had entered into a contract with the City to sell the 4.6-acre parcel for $70,000.00. It is the law of this State that a municipality, acting through its duly-elected or appointed officials, becomes bound by its agreements so long as those agreements are for the public good, Williamsport v. Washington County Sanitary Dist., 247 Md. 326, 332, 231 A.2d 40, 44 (1967); City of Rockville v. Brookeville Turnpike Const. Co., 246 Md. 117, 129, 228 A.2d 263, 270 (1967). While they may not have acquired a right in perpetuity, they certainly had a right the life of which was only limited by reasonableness, 3 E. Yokley, Municipal Corporations § 436, at 8 (1958), a right which was neither extinguished nor attenuated by a lapse of nine years, primarily because from 1964 until at least 1971, the Cranes had no reason to suppose that their right was at hazard.

  6. Wilson v. Board of Co. Comm'rs

    327 A.2d 488 (Md. 1974)   Cited 11 times
    Upholding county's issuance of industrial revenue bonds in connection with paper mill pollution abatement efforts, including projects beyond county limits as those projects would facilitate cleaner environment in county

    " Id. at 813-14. The test to be applied by a court in reviewing the action of a public body to determine whether a public purpose is involved in a proposed expenditure of public funds was set forth for the Court by Judge Barnes in Williamsport v. Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 231 A.2d 40 (1967): "[I]n the case at bar, we believe the purchase by the Town of immunity from a possible threat to the health and welfare of its residents is not an ultra vires or an unconstitutional act.

  7. Grinnell Co. v. City of Crisfield

    264 Md. 552 (Md. 1972)   Cited 11 times
    In Grinnell Co. v. City of Crisfield, 264 Md. 552, 287 A.2d 486 (1972), it was contended that a municipality having express authority under a state statute to construct industrial buildings for the purpose of relieving unemployment had no power to erect a building outside its corporate limits.

    215 Md. at 16 and 19. See also, Maryland Industrial Development Financing Authority v. Helfrich, 250 Md. 602, 607, 243 A.2d 869 (1968); Town of Williamsport v. Washington County Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 331, 231 A.2d 40 (1967); County Commissioners of Queen Anne's County v. Miles, 246 Md. 355, 372, 228 A.2d 450 (1967); and Lerch v. Maryland Port Authority, 240 Md. 438, 446, 214 A.2d 761 (1965). In short, we think that the action of the City of Crisfield in financing the acquisition of land and the construction of a plant addition for the Rubberset Company under the authority of Article 41, § 266B served a valid purpose, and consequently is a "public work or improvement," as those words are intended in Article 90, § 11. Having determined that the plant addition falls within the ambit of Article 90, § 11, it follows from Hamilton, supra, and the other cases we have cited that a mechanics' lien was an unavailable remedy for the appellant to pursue against the City of Crisfield.

  8. Farmer v. Jamieson

    31 Md. App. 37 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    See 11 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, § 31.13 (3d. ed.); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Crane, 277 Md. 198, 352 A.2d 786 (1976). Williamsport v. Washington County Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 231 A.2d 40 (1967); City of Rockville v. Brookeville Turnpike Const. Co., 246 Md. 117, 228 A.2d 263 (1967). While the county council has the power to amend the Master Plan they cannot arbitrarily impair contract rights.

  9. 88 Op. Att'y Gen. 76

    88 Op. Att'y Gen. 76 (Ops.Md.Atty.Gen. 2003)

    This power is extensive, limited only by the Constitutional restriction imposed by Article 15 of the Declaration of Rights that taxes must be laid (and public money spent) "with a political view for the good government and benefit of the community." Williamsport v. Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 331, 231 A.2d 40 (1967). Similarly, Article 23A, § 2(b)(2) provides expansively that a municipality may enact ordinances "[t]o expend municipal funds for any purpose deemed to be public and to affect the safety, health, and general welfare of the municipality and its occupants.

  10. 86 Op. Att'y Gen. 52

    86 Op. Att'y Gen. 52 (Ops.Md.Atty.Gen. 2001)

    In reviewing legislative action, "it is only necessary that the legislative determination to spend a particular amount of public funds be reasonable and based on an honest judgment of those officials charged with the care of the public purse that the expenditure is for the best interests of the [jurisdiction.]" Town of Williamsport v. Washington County Sanitary District, 247 Md. 326, 231 A.2d 40 (1967). C. Whether a "Moral Obligation" Supports a Public Purpose