State v. Maddox, 7 A.3d 38 (Md. 2010). · Go Syfert
State v. Maddox, 7 A.3d 38 (Md. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Employees' Retirement System v. Bradford (mdctspecapp, 2016-02-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Employees' Retirement System v. Bradford
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2016 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
an agency decision based on regulatory and statutory interpretation is a conclusion of law.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Kor-Ko Ltd. v. Maryland Department of the Environment (4×)
Md. · 2017 · confidence medium
When an agency interprets its own regulations or the statute the agency was created to administer, we are especially mindful of that agency’s expertise in its field.” Carven v. State Ret. & Pension Sys. of Md., 416 Md. 389, 406 , 7 A.3d 38, 49 (2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hastings v. PNC Bank, NA.
Md. · 2012 · confidence medium
“When a statute’s plain language is unambiguous, we need only to apply the statute as written, and our efforts to ascertain the legislature’s intent end there.” Carven v. State Ret. & Pension Sys., 416 Md. 389, 407-08 , 7 A.3d 38, 49 (2010) (quoting Crofton Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 413 Md. 201, 216 , 991 A.2d 1257, 1266 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Ritter
Md. · 2011 · confidence medium
Carven v. State Ret. & Pension Sys., 416 Md. 389, 407-08 , 7 A.3d 38, 49 (2010) (citations omitted) (quoting Crofton Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 413 Md. 201, 216 , 991 A.2d 1257, 1266 (2010)). 1.
discussed Cited "see" In re: Foster Farm
Md. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis, 489 Md. 155 , 322 A.3d 1257 . 14 STANDARD OF REVIEW “An agency decision based on regulatory and statutory interpretation is a conclusion of law.” Carven v. State Ret. & Pension Sys. of Md., 416 Md. 389, 406 , 7 A.3d 38, 49 (2010) (citation omitted).
cited Cited "see" Walker v. Department of Housing & Community Development
Md. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carven v. State Retirement & Pension System of Maryland, 416 Md. 389, 410 , 7 A.3d 38, 51 (2010); Sugarloaf 323 Md. at 652 , 594 A.2d at 1120 .
cited Cited "see" Assateague Coastkeeper v. Maryland Department of the Environment
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2011 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Carven v. State Ret. & Pension Sys., 416 Md. 389, 408 , 7 A.3d 38 (2010) (applying rules of statutory construction to regulations).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cathey v. DEPT. OF HEALTH
Md. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
If statutes are remedial because they authorize regulations conducive to the public good, then manifestly we should interpret those regulations liberally as well, to “suppress the evil and advance the remedy.” See Lark, 414 Md. at 228 , 994 A.2d at 976 ; see also Carven v. State Ret. & Pension Sys., 416 Md. 389, 416 , 7 A.3d 38, 55 (2010) (Murphy, J., dissenting) (“Because the ambiguous COMAR regulation at issue applies to a remedial statute, the regulation should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." DEINLEIN v. Johnson
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co. v. Kim, 376 Md. 276, 290 , 829 A.2d 611 (2003); see also Carven v. State Ret. & Pension Sys., 416 Md. 389, 408 , 7 A.3d 38 (2010); Bost v. State, 406 Md. 341, 350 , 958 A.2d 356 (2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Maryland
v.
Anissa MADDOX
96, September Term, 2010.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Oct 25, 2010.
7 A.3d 38
Katherine P. Rasin, Assistant Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore), for respondent.
Submitted Before Bell.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 71%
Citer courts: Court of Special Appeals of Ma… (1)
PER CURIAM

ORDER.

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case having been granted and argued, it is this 25th day of October, 2010,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for further reconsideration in light of State of Maryland v. Brian Gerard Kanavy, Shadi Sabbagh, Dennis Harding, Mark Richard Sainato and Jason Willie Robinson, 416 Md. 1, 4 A.3d 991 (2010). Costs in this Court and in the Court of Special Appeals to be paid by Respondent.