Brodie v. Motor Veh. Admin., 785 A.2d 747 (Md. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Brodie v. Motor Veh. Admin., 785 A.2d 747 (Md. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2005 · 2 courts · …since brodie's entire challenge to the administrative decision was based on an issue not raised before the agency, the circuit court should have affirmed the administrative decision without reaching the issue. ✓
69 citation events (69 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Department of Labor v. Boardley (mdctspecapp, 2005-09-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Department of Labor v. Boardley (2×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2005 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
since brodie's entire challenge to the administrative decision was based on an issue not raised before the agency, the circuit court should have affirmed the administrative decision without reaching the issue.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of D.M.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Id. at 650 . 16 In Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, our Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not raise the issue of whether the Motor Vehicle Administration could revoke a driver’s license that had already been revoked because he failed to raise it before the administrative agency. 367 Md. 1, 4 (2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Usan
Md. · 2024 · confidence medium
COSTS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT. (. . . continued) for certiorari or any cross-petition and that has been preserved for review by the Supreme Court.”); Gonce, 446 Md. at 126 , 130 A.3d at 452 (“a court will review an adjudicatory agency decision solely on the grounds relied upon by the administrative agency.”) (cleaned up); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 367 Md. 1, 4 , 785 A.2d 747, 749 (2001) (declining to address a motorist’s claim because it was never raised during the administrative hearing). 20 Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CV-22-000278 Argued: November 3, 2023 IN…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Usan
Md. · 2024 · confidence medium
COSTS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT. (. . . continued) for certiorari or any cross-petition and that has been preserved for review by the Supreme Court.”); Gonce, 446 Md. at 126 , 130 A.3d at 452 (“a court will review an adjudicatory agency decision solely on the grounds relied upon by the administrative agency.”) (cleaned up); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 367 Md. 1, 4 , 785 A.2d 747, 749 (2001) (declining to address a motorist’s claim because it was never raised during the administrative hearing). 20 Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CV-22-000278 Argued: November 3, 2023 IN…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Usan
Md. · 2024 · confidence medium
COSTS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT. (. . . continued) for certiorari or any cross-petition and that has been preserved for review by the Supreme Court.”); Gonce, 446 Md. at 126 , 130 A.3d at 452 (“a court will review an adjudicatory agency decision solely on the grounds relied upon by the administrative agency.”) (cleaned up); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 367 Md. 1, 4 , 785 A.2d 747, 749 (2001) (declining to address a motorist’s claim because it was never raised during the administrative hearing). 20 Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CV-22-000278 Argued: November 3, 2023 IN…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Usan
Md. · 2024 · confidence medium
COSTS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT. (. . . continued) for certiorari or any cross-petition and that has been preserved for review by the Supreme Court.”); Gonce, 446 Md. at 126 , 130 A.3d at 452 (“a court will review an adjudicatory agency decision solely on the grounds relied upon by the administrative agency.”) (cleaned up); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 367 Md. 1, 4 , 785 A.2d 747, 749 (2001) (declining to address a motorist’s claim because it was never raised during the administrative hearing). 20 Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CV-22-000278 Argued: November 3, 2023 IN…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Motor Vehicle Administration v. Shea (3×) also: Cited "see"
Md. · 2010 · confidence medium
In addition, it is settled law in Maryland that a court ordinarily “may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review and that are not encompassed in the final decision of the administrative agency.” Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 367 Md. 1, 4 , 785 A.2d 747, 749 (2001) (quotation marks and internal citation omitted); accord Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Weller, 390 Md. 115, 128 , 887 A.2d 1042, 1050 (2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Motor Vehicle Administration v. Shepard (2×)
Md. · 2007 · confidence medium
It is a settled principle of Maryland administrative law that, in an action for judicial review of an adjudicatory administrative agency decision, the reviewing courts should decline to consider "an issue not raised before the agency," Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 367 Md. 1, 4 , 785 A.2d 747, 749 (2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Motor Vehicle Administration v. Weller
Md. · 2005 · confidence medium
As we noted in Bulluck, [v. Pelham Wood Apartments], 283 Md. [505] at 518-19, 390 A.2d [1119] at 1127 [(1978)], quoting from Unemployment Compensation Comm’n v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 155 , 67 S.Ct. 245 , 91 L.Ed. 136 (1946), ‘[a] reviewing court usurps the agency’s function when it sets aside the administrative determination upon a ground not theretofore presented and deprives the [agency] of an opportunity to consider the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for its action.’ We do not allow issues to be raised for the first time in actions for judicial review of administrati…
discussed Cited "see" Motor Vehicle Administration v. Gonce (2×)
Md. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin. of Md., 367 Md. 1, 3-4, 785 A.2d 747, 749 (2001) (“[I]n an action for judicial review of an adjudicatory decision by an administrative agency, a reviewing court ordinarily may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review and that are not encompassed in the final decision of the administrative agency.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gateway Terry v. Prince George's Cnty.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 367 Md. 1, 3-4 (2001) (stating that, “in an action for judicial review of an adjudicatory decision by an administrative agency, a reviewing court ordinarily ‘may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review and that are not encompassed in the final decision of the administrative agency’”) (quoting Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Campbell, 364 Md. 108, 123 (2001)).9 But even if the equal protection issue were properly before us (which it is not), we would reject it.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Willow Grove Citizens Association v. County Council Prince George's County (2×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Zakwieia v. Baltimore Co. Bd. of Educ. , 454 Md. 676 , 165 A.3d 472 (2017) ); see also Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Admin. of Md. , 367 Md. 1 , 4, 785 A.2d 747 (2001) (stating that "[a] court will review an adjudicatory agency decision solely on the grounds relied upon by the agency" (quoting Dept. of Health v. Campbell , 364 Md. 108 , 123, 771 A.2d 1051 (2001) ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bereano v. State Ethics Commission (2×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Brodie v. MVA, 367 Md. 1, 4 , 785 A.2d 747 (2001) *164 (affirming case for the reasons set forth by the agency and declining to address a question not raised before the agency).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Public Service Commission v. Panda-Brandywine, L.P. (2×)
Md. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
PEPCO complained that the Circuit Court “erred in undertaking de novo review of the PSC’s order,” that it erred “in its de novo determination that the back-to-back transaction violated Section 19.1 of the PPA,” and that the PSC “correctly determined on the evidence before it that the back-to-back transaction under the APSA did not constitute a violation of Section 19.1 of the PPA.” In its brief, the PSC essentially restated those limited issues— whether the Circuit Court improperly applied de novo review of the Commission’s decision and whether the Commission “properly dete…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas Michael BRODIE
v.
MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION OF MARYLAND
110, Sept. Term, 2000.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Dec 3, 2001.
785 A.2d 747
2001 Md. LEXIS 932
John Patrick Kudel (John Patrick Kudel, P.A., on the brief), Rockville, for petitioner., Valerie Johnston Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of MD, on brief), Glen Burnie, for respondent.
Eldridge.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 60%
Citer courts: Court of Special Appeals of Ma… (2)
ELDRIDGE, Judge.

Thomas Michael Brodie, a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland, is seeking appellate review of a judgment by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County upholding the revocation by the Motor Vehicle Administration (“MVA”) of Brodie’s license to drive.

The MVA initially revoked Brodie’s license on April 21, 1998, for points that he had accumulated on his driving record following a 1997 conviction for driving while intoxicated and convictions for other motor vehicle offenses. On December 24,1998, Brodie was again arrested for driving while intoxicated, and on September 17, 1999, he was convicted of this offense. The MVA subsequently assessed 12 points against Brodie on his Maryland driving record for this 1999 drunk driving conviction, and on November 2, 1999, it revoked Brodie’s license a second time on the following grounds: (1) Brodie had accumulated 12 new points; (2) Brodie had continued to drive his automobile after the initial revocation of his license in 1998; (3) Brodie was an unfit and unsafe driver in light of his 1997 and 1999 convictions, as well as three drunk driving convictions prior to 1997.

Brodie requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the hearing was held in March 2000 before an administrative law judge. At the hearing, Brodie argued that he had overcome his previous history of substance abuse and that, therefore, the MVA should not revoke his license a second time. The administrative law judge upheld the MVA’s second revocation of Brodie’s license on the grounds (1) that under Maryland Code (1977, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2001 Supp.),[*3] § 16-404(a)(3)(ii) of the Transportation Article, revocation of an individual’s driver’s license is required if the individual accumulates 12 points, and (2) that § 16-205(a)(1) of the Transportation Article authorizes the MVA to revoke the license of an individual who, inter alia, is convicted “of driving ... a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.” The decision of the administrative law judge became the final administrative decision of the MVA. See § 12-104(e)(2) of the Transportation Article.

Brodie filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County an action for judicial review of the administrative decision. In the Circuit Court, Brodie did not challenge the grounds for the administrative decision, and he did not reiterate his argument that he had overcome his alcohol abuse problems. Instead, Brodie argued that the MVA may not revoke a driver’s license when that license has already been revoked. The Circuit Court addressed the merits of this argument, rejected the argument, and affirmed the administrative decision.

Brodie filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which presented the single question of whether the MVA was authorized to revoke a driver’s license when “the petitioner’s license and privilege to drive were already revoked.” (Petition for a writ of certiorari at 2). Believing that this was an important legal issue under the Maryland vehicle laws, Title 11 et seq. of the Transportation Article, we granted the petition. Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 362 Md. 187, 763 A.2d 734 (2000). We shall not, however, be able to reach the issue.

The petitioner Brodie concedes that the single legal question presented in his certiorari petition was never raised during the administrative proceedings. The issue of whether the MVA is statutorily authorized to revoke a driver’s license which has already been revoked was raised for the first time in the Circuit Court.

As Chief Judge Bell for the Court recently emphasized in Dept. of Health v. Campbell, 364 Md. 108, 123, 771 A.2d 1051, 1060 (2001), in an action for judicial review of an[*4] adjudicatory decision by an administrative agency, a reviewing court ordinarily

“may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review and that are not encompassed in the final decision of the administrative agency. Stated differently, a ... court will review an adjudicatory agency decision solely on the grounds relied upon by the agency.”

See, e.g., County Council sitting as District Council v. Bran-dywine Enterprises, 350 Md. 339, 349, 711 A.2d 1346, 1351 (1998) (“we will review an adjudicatory agency decision solely on the grounds relied upon by the agency”); Insurance Commissioner v. Equitable, 339 Md. 596, 634, 664 A.2d 862, 881 (1995); United Parcel v. People’s Counsel, 336 Md. 569, 585-87, 650 A.2d 226, 234-235 (1994); Mossburg v. Montgomery County, 329 Md. 494, 507-08, 620 A.2d 886, 893 (1993); Harford County v. Preston, Inc., 322 Md. 493, 505, 588 A.2d 772, 778 (1991), and cases there cited.

Since Brodie’s entire challenge to the administrative decision was based on an issue not raised before the agency, the Circuit Court should have affirmed the administrative decision without reaching the issue. Dept. of Health v. Campbell, supra, 364 Md. at 123-124, 771 A.2d at 1060 (“Because the issue ... [was] presented to the Circuit Court for the first time and never raised ... [before] the Administrative Law Judges, that court erred in” ruling upon the issue). Likewise, we shall uphold the decisions below without reaching the only issue presented to us.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. PETITIONER TO PAY COSTS.