|
<br />OUZ;J4 !
<br />
<br />70
<br />
<br />79see, e.q., Castle Estates, Inc. v. Park and Planning Bd. of
<br />Medfiefd;" 344 Mass. 329, 182 N.E. 2d 54.0 (1962); Borough of 1.l.#
<br />Oaklandv; Roth, 25 N.J. Super. 32., 95 A.,2d 422, aff'd., 100
<br />A. 2d698 (1953). '
<br />
<br />80See generally 3 ANDERSON 919.24 at 441.
<br />813 ANDERSON 919.24, at 441.
<br />
<br />82Id. 919.43, at 493-97, and oases cited therein. See, e.g.,
<br />Petterson v. City of Naperville, 9 Ill. 2d 233, 137 N.E.2d 371
<br />(1956) ; Allen v. Stockwell, 210 Mich. 488, 178 N.W. 27 (1920).
<br />
<br />833 ANDERSON 919.24, at 442. For a case generally endorsing the
<br />"privilege" ra!oionale see Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone
<br />County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964)
<br />
<br />843 ANDERSON 919.24, at 443.
<br />
<br />85Id.
<br />
<br />86 ' 1
<br />3 ANDERSON 919.43, at 496. see, e.g., Cast e Estates, Inc. v.
<br />.Park & Planning Bd., 344 Mass. 329,182 N.E.2d 540 (1962).
<br />
<br />87See the two cases cited in note 82, sup~.
<br />
<br />8SKesselri.ng v. Wakefield Realty Co., Inc. 306 Ky~ 725, 209 S.N.2d
<br />63 (1948).
<br />
<br />89Baker v. Planning Bd. "Of Framingham, 353 Mass. 141, 228 N.E.2d
<br />831 (1967).
<br />
<br />90Snyder v.Zoning Board of Town of Nester1y, 98 R.L 139,200
<br />A..2d 222 (1964).
<br />
<br />91Shorb v. Barkley, 108 Cal. App. 2d 873, 240 P.2d 337 (1952).
<br />
<br />92Clinton v. West Norriton Twp., 75 Montg. Co,L.Rep. 262(1957).
<br />
<br />93See cases cited in notes 94-97 infra.
<br />
<br />9~Baltimore County v. Security Mortg. Corp., 227 Md. 234, 175
<br />A.2d 755 (1961).
<br />
<br />95city of Summit v. Horton Corp., 70 N.J. Super. 529, 176 A.2d
<br />34 (1961). .
<br />
<br />96Wine v. Council of Los Angeles," 177 Cal. App. 2d 157, 2 Cal.
<br />Rptr. 94 (1960); Baltimore County v. Security Mtge., 227 Md.
<br />234, 175 A.2d 755 (1961); 14edine v. Burns, 29 Misc. 2d 890,
<br />208 N.Y.S. 2d 12 (1960r.
<br />
<br />,f,f{}?
<br />
|