Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2005Accord Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 385 Md. 534, 553-55 , 870 A.2d 168 (2005) (“a reviewing court ordinarily ‘ “may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review....”’ ”); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 367 Md. 1, 3-4 , 785 A.2d 747 (2001) (“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.”) In support of his petition for judicial review, Boardley suggested that DLLR’s deci 2005Accord Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 385 Md. 534, 553-55 , 870 A.2d 168 (2005) (“a reviewing court ordinarily ‘ “may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review....”’ ”); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 367 Md. 1, 3-4 , 785 A.2d 747 (2001) (“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.”) In support of his petition for judicial review, Boardley suggested that DLLR’s deci | 1 | 1 |
Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administrationgreen2 sentences2005Accord Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 385 Md. 534, 553-55 , 870 A.2d 168 (2005) (“a reviewing court ordinarily ‘ “may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review....”’ ”); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 367 Md. 1, 3-4 , 785 A.2d 747 (2001) (“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.”) In support of his petition for judicial review, Boardley suggested that DLLR’s deci 2005Accord Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 385 Md. 534, 553-55 , 870 A.2d 168 (2005) (“a reviewing court ordinarily ‘ “may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review....”’ ”); Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 367 Md. 1, 3-4 , 785 A.2d 747 (2001) (“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.”) In support of his petition for judicial review, Boardley suggested that DLLR’s deci | 1 | 1 |
Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Mass Transit Administrationgreen2 sentences1983Maryland Code, Art. 49B, §§ 10 and 11 establish that if the Commission’s staff finds probable cause to believe that a discriminatory act or acts have been committed, and if no agreement is reached for the elimination of the alleged discriminatory acts, a case is to be set for a hearing before a hearing examiner who is to render a decision. 7 Article 49B, *591 § 3 (d) establishes that a party affected by a hearing examiner’s decision may appeal to an "appellate panel of commissioners.” 8 Finally, Art. 49B, § 12 (a) and Art. 41, § 255 (a) establish that either the Commission or an aggrieved part 1983Maryland Code, Art. 49B, §§ 10 and 11 establish that if the Commission’s staff finds probable cause to believe that a discriminatory act or acts have been committed, and if no agreement is reached for the elimination of the alleged discriminatory acts, a case is to be set for a hearing before a hearing examiner who is to render a decision. 7 Article 49B, *591 § 3 (d) establishes that a party affected by a hearing examiner’s decision may appeal to an "appellate panel of commissioners.” 8 Finally, Art. 49B, § 12 (a) and Art. 41, § 255 (a) establish that either the Commission or an aggrieved part | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cave v. Elliott
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 92, 988 A.2d 1 (some emphasis added). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2010Anderson, 395 Md. at 184 , 909 A.2d 694 . 2010Anderson, 395 Md. at 184 , 909 A.2d 694 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Cochran v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2002“The purpose of § 734 is to enforce the accused officer’s rights under the Act, not to restrict the agency’s legitimate right to discipline errant officers.” Cochran v. Anderson, 73 Md.App. 604, 616 , 535 A.2d 955 (1988). 2002“The purpose of § 734 is to enforce the accused officer’s rights under the Act, not to restrict the agency’s legitimate right to discipline errant officers.” Cochran v. Anderson, 73 Md.App. 604, 616 , 535 A.2d 955 (1988). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.