administrative agency made error (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

administrative agency made error in Maryland

11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Watkins v. Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Correctional Servicesgreen
md · 2003 · cited in 5 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2004–2025
2 sentences

2025This Court “may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law[,]” which typically “requires considering (1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision.” Id. at 46 , 831 A.2d at 1086 (cleaned up); see also Gigeous v. E.

2025This Court “may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law[,]” which typically “requires considering (1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision.” Id. at 46 , 831 A.2d at 1086 (cleaned up); see also Gigeous v. E.

25
Baltimore Lutheran High School Ass'n v. Employment Security Administrationgreen
md · 1985 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1988–2003
2 sentences

1988The Court, in addition to applying the substantial evidence test, 1 as discussed by appellant, must also consider *135 the legality of the decision, Baltimore Lutheran High School v. Employment Security Administration, 302 Md. 649, 662 , 490 A.2d 701 (1985), because despite the level of deference which this Court is required to afford administrative decisions, “a reviewing court may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.”, Board of Education of Montgomery County v. Paynter, 303 Md. 22, 35 , 491 A.2d 1186 (1985).

1988The Court, in addition to applying the substantial evidence test, 1 as discussed by appellant, must also consider *135 the legality of the decision, Baltimore Lutheran High School v. Employment Security Administration, 302 Md. 649, 662 , 490 A.2d 701 (1985), because despite the level of deference which this Court is required to afford administrative decisions, “a reviewing court may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.”, Board of Education of Montgomery County v. Paynter, 303 Md. 22, 35 , 491 A.2d 1186 (1985).

12
Baltimore County v. RTKL Associates Inc.green
md · 2004 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004In interpreting a statute we have said that the “predominant goal, when construing statutes, is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent.” Baltimore County v. *513 RTKL, 380 Md. 670, 678 , 846 A.2d 433, 437 (2004).

2004In interpreting a statute we have said that the “predominant goal, when construing statutes, is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent.” Baltimore County v. *513 RTKL, 380 Md. 670, 678 , 846 A.2d 433, 437 (2004).

11
Board of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banksgreen
md · 1999 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See Board of Physician v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 68-69 , 729 A.2d 376, 381 (1999); however, we “may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.” Baltimore Lutheran High School v. Employment Sec.

2003See Board of Physician v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 68-69 , 729 A.2d 376, 381 (1999); however, we “may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.” Baltimore Lutheran High School v. Employment Sec.

11
State Administration Board of Election Laws v. Billhimergreen
md · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990See, e.g., State Election Bd. v. Billhimer, 314 Md. 46, 59 , 548 A.2d 819 (1988); Board of Educ., Mont.

1990See, e.g., State Election Bd. v. Billhimer, 314 Md. 46, 59 , 548 A.2d 819 (1988); Board of Educ., Mont.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Long v. Injured Workers' Insurance Fund green
md · 2016
2 sentences

2023Fund, 448 Md. 253, 264 , 138 A.3d 1225 , 1231- 32 (2016) (“We must respect the expertise of [an administrative] agency and accord deference to its interpretation of a statute that it administers; however, we may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.” (Citation omitted)).

2023Fund, 448 Md. 253, 264 , 138 A.3d 1225 , 1231- 32 (2016) (“We must respect the expertise of [an administrative] agency and accord deference to its interpretation of a statute that it administers; however, we may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.” (Citation omitted)).

22022–2023
Board of Educ., Mont. Co. v. Paynter green
md · 1985
2 sentences

1988The Court, in addition to applying the substantial evidence test, 1 as discussed by appellant, must also consider *135 the legality of the decision, Baltimore Lutheran High School v. Employment Security Administration, 302 Md. 649, 662 , 490 A.2d 701 (1985), because despite the level of deference which this Court is required to afford administrative decisions, “a reviewing court may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.”, Board of Education of Montgomery County v. Paynter, 303 Md. 22, 35 , 491 A.2d 1186 (1985).

1988The Court, in addition to applying the substantial evidence test, 1 as discussed by appellant, must also consider *135 the legality of the decision, Baltimore Lutheran High School v. Employment Security Administration, 302 Md. 649, 662 , 490 A.2d 701 (1985), because despite the level of deference which this Court is required to afford administrative decisions, “a reviewing court may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.”, Board of Education of Montgomery County v. Paynter, 303 Md. 22, 35 , 491 A.2d 1186 (1985).

21988–1988
Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Pennel green
mdctspecapp · 2000
2 sentences

2012“We must respect the expertise of the agency and accord deference to its interpretation of a statute that it administers ...; however, we ‘may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.’ ” Watkins, 377 Md. at 46 , 831 A.2d 1079 (citation omitted). “[W]e must determine whether the agency’s decision is in accordance with the law or whether it is arbitrary, illegal, and capricious.” Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Pennel, 133 Md.App. 279, 288 , 754 A.2d 1120 (2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2012“We must respect the expertise of the agency and accord deference to its interpretation of a statute that it administers ...; however, we ‘may always determine whether the administrative agency made an error of law.’ ” Watkins, 377 Md. at 46 , 831 A.2d 1079 (citation omitted). “[W]e must determine whether the agency’s decision is in accordance with the law or whether it is arbitrary, illegal, and capricious.” Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Pennel, 133 Md.App. 279, 288 , 754 A.2d 1120 (2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

12012–2012

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check