infamous incantation of “financial hardship” so often disavowed by this Court. It is not with a deaf or a totally unsympathetic ear that we listen to the details of the financial disaster which may result____ Nevertheless ... we do not find that this property has been unconstitutionally confiscated. 271 Md. at 664, 319 A.2d 536 (citation omitted). See also Howard County v. Dorsey, 292 Md. 351, 365 n. 6, 438 A.2d 1339 (1982) (rejecting the contention that fifte .2d 244 (1973) (“In order to obtain a rezoning on the basis of an unconstitutional confiscation, an applicant must show that he has been deprived of all reasonable use of his property and that it cannot be used for any of the permitted uses in the existing zone.”); Krieger v. Planning Comm’n, 224 Md. 320, 323, 167 A.2d 885 (1961) (<HOLDING>); Greenberg v. State, 66 Md.App. 24, 34-36, 502
holding that attorneys fees were nondischargeable as maintenance even though award was in favor of attorneys not spouse because it was rendered in light of the financial resources of the parties holding that restrictions for the public welfare were permissible even though the restrictions resulted in serious financial loss to the owner holding that ordinance conferred unbridled discretion where issuance of permit was subject to broad findings that proposed use will not have a harmful effect upon the health or welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community or the surrounding land uses holding that even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for misconduct and even though the order of dismissal was therefore not an adjudication on the merits the defendants were nevertheless properly considered the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees recognizing the importance of public welfare and conservation of water in administering its public waters