The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission v. Montrose Ecor Rouge, L.L.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/25/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2080276 The Baldwin County P l a n n i n g and Zoning Commission v. Montrose Ecor Rouge, L.L.C. Montrose Ecor Rouge, L.L.C. v. The Baldwin County P l a n n i n g and Zoning Commission Appeals from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-08-900122) A f t e r Remand BRYAN, Judge. Court f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t 2080276 The Supreme Court judgment of t h i s of Alabama c o u r t and has reversed remanded t h e the prior Ex parte c a u s e . See B a l d w i n C o u n t y P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Comm'n, [Ms. 1091042, O c t o b e r 22, 2010] So. 3d r e s p e c t to the appeal and Zoning judgment 1.2.2, (Ala. 2010). Accordingly, b r o u g h t by t h e B a l d w i n Commission of the trial 5.1, and ("the 5.2.2 Commission"), court of insofar the as Baldwin R e g u l a t i o n s t o be v o i d and u n e n f o r c e a b l e i t County Planning we reverse (1) declared County and with the §§ Subdivision (2) i s s u e d a w r i t o f mandamus c o m p e l l i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o a p p r o v e a p r e l i m i n a r y plat by ("the p l a t " ) s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n i n November 2007 Montrose remand t h e Ecor Rouge, cause t o the L.L.C. trial ("the court developer"), for further and proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e supreme c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n . W i t h r e s p e c t the cross-appeal judgment of developer's the claim brought trial by the court seeking an CROSS-APPEAL -Thompson, concur. P.J., insofar award Commission f o r d i s a p p r o v i n g the APPEAL -- REVERSED AND developer, of as we to we affirm the i t denied the against the damages plat. REMANDED. AFFIRMED. and Pittman, 2 Thomas, and Moore, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.