Md. Reclamation v. Harford Cty. (1996)

See Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 146-47 , 108 S.Ct. 2302 , 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988) (citing Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 , 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982), for the proposition that “plaintiffs need not exhaust state administrative remedies before instituting § 1983 suits in federal court”); MRA II, 677 A.2d at 575 (finding it “appropriate for a court to consider [constitutional zoning] arguments regardless of the failure by [plaintiff] to invoke an…

Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cnty., 677 A.2d 567, 579 (Md. 1996).

Furthermore, under Maryland law, the Harford County Board of Appeals would be authorized and required to consider any of the constitutional and other issues raised by Maryland Reclamation to the extent that those issues would be pertinent in the particular proceedings before the Board.” MRA II, 342 Md. at 490-92 , 677 A.2d at 574-75 (citations and footnote omitted).

Reclamation v. Harford County, 342 Md. 476, 493 , 677 A.2d 567 , 576 (1996) (“this Court has ‘ordinarily construed the pertinent [legislative] enactments to require that the administrative remedy be first invoked and followed’ before resort to the Courts”).

Maryland Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford County, 342 Md. 476, 481 , 677 A.2d 567, 569-70 (1996). 41 .

Montgomery County v. Broadcast Equities, Inc., supra, 360 Md. at 451 n. 8, 758 A.2d at 1002 n. 8; Holiday v. Anne Arundel, supra, 349 Md. at 199, 707 A.2d at 834 ; Maryland Reclamation v. Harford County, 342 Md. 476, 491-492 , 677 A.2d 567, 575 (1996).

Reclamation Assocs., 342 Md. at 494 , 677 A.2d at 576 (“where the constitutionality of a statute on its face is challenged, and where there exists a recognized declaratory judgment or equitable remedy, we have held that the challenger ordinarily need not invoke and exhaust his administrative remedy”)(citing Ins.

See also Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, 342 Md. 476, 493 , 677 A.2d 567, 576 (1996) (“[T]his Court has ‘ordinarily construed the pertinent [legislative] enactments to require that the administrative remedy be first invoked and followed’ before resort to *16 the courts.”); Clinton v. Board of Education of Howard County, 315 Md. 666, 678 , 556 A.2d 273, 279 (1989) (“Ordinarily when there are two forums available, one judicial and the other administrat…

Reclamation v. Harford County, 382 Md. 348, 366 , 855 A.2d 351, 362 (2004) (The "failure to exhaust administrative remedies, before bringing this judicial review action, applies to the federal constitutional issues as well as the state constitutional and nonconstitutional issues”); Holiday Point Marina v. Anne Arundel County, 349 Md. 190, 199-200 , 707 A.2d 829, 834 (1998) (The adjudicatory administrative agency erred by not ruling on the material constitutional issue); Mary…

Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford Cty., 342 Md. 476, 491-492 , 677 A.2d 567, 575 (1996) (“under Maryland law, the Harford County Board of Appeals would be authorized and required to consider any of the constitutional and other *200 issues raised by Maryland Reclamation to the extent that those issues would be pertinent in the particular proceeding before the Board”); Insurance Commissioner v. Equitable, 339 Md. 596, 617-624 , 664 A.2d 862, 873-876 (1995) (“The modern c…

Reclamation v. Hanford County, supra, 342 Md. at 493 , 677 A.2d at 576 (“this Court has ‘ordinarily construed the pertinent [legislative] enactments to require that the adminis *64 trative remedy be first invoked and followed’ before resort to the Courts”); Luskin’s v. Consumer Protection, 338 Md. 188, 194-199 , 657 A.2d 788, 791-793 (1995); Clinton v. Board of Education, 315 Md. 666, 678 , 556 A.2d 273, 279 (1989) (“Ordinarily, when there are two forums available, one judic…

Reclamation v. Harford Cty., 342 Md. 476, 493 , 677 A.2d 567, 576 (1996)(quoting Hubbard, 305 Md. at 786 , 506 A.2d at 631 ).

See also Maryland Reclamation Assocs. v. Harford County, 342 Md. 476, 490-491 , 677 A.2d 567 , 574-575 (1996) (constitutional challenge to local zoning ordinance must await completion of two administrative zoning actions); State v. Md.

See Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, 342 Md. 476, 493 , 677 A.2d 567 (1996); Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland, 382 Md. 348, 366 , 855 A.2d 351 (2004).

See Maryland Reclamation Assocs. v. Harford County, 342 Md. 476, 490-491 , 677 A.2d 567 , 574-575 (1996) (“MRA II”); see also Josephson v. City of Annapolis, 353 Md. 667, 675, 677 , 728 A.2d 690, 694, 695 (1998) (“[T]he administrative remedy is intended to be primary” even where the Legislature has not “specifi[ed] that the administrative remedy is primary or exclusive!.]”).

We explained in Downey : It “ ‘comes into play when a court and agency have [initial] concurrent jurisdiction over the same matter and there is no statutory provision to coordinate the work of the court with that of the agency.’ ’’This concept provides that “ ‘where the claim is initially cognizable in the courts but raises issues or relates to subject matter falling within the special expertise of an administrative agency,’ courts should defer to the expertise of the agency…

See Maryland Reclamation, 342 Md. at 502-06 , 677 A.2d 567 ; Ticor Title Ins.

See Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Md., 342 Md. 476 , 677 A.2d 567 (1996).

See, e.g., Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford, 342 Md. 476 , 677 A.2d 567 (1996) (no protected interest in a discretionary decision).