11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalghgreen2 sentences2016Quoting from Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. 151, 160 , 252 A.2d 242, 246 (1969), we observed that “[gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the language of [the Express Powers Act] were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in [the laws governing charter counties].” Chesapeake Bay Found., 439 Md. at 602-03 , 97 A.3d at 143 . 2016Quoting from Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. 151, 160 , 252 A.2d 242, 246 (1969), we observed that “[gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the language of [the Express Powers Act] were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in [the laws governing charter counties].” Chesapeake Bay Found., 439 Md. at 602-03 , 97 A.3d at 143 . | 1 | 8 |
City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel Countygreen2 sentences2016See also Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 347 Md. 1, 14 , 698 A.2d 523 (1997), observing that, although the authority of charter counties to budget and appropriate funds “is not expressly granted by the Express Powers Act or any other enactment of the General Assembly,” it “is implicit in Article XI-A and is an inherent power of all Maryland counties.” These cases make clear that the powers of a charter county are not, as petitioners contend, limited to a narrow and constricted reading of the list of express powers delegated following the ratification of Art. 2016See also Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 347 Md. 1, 14 , 698 A.2d 523 (1997), observing that, although the authority of charter counties to budget and appropriate funds “is not expressly granted by the Express Powers Act or any other enactment of the General Assembly,” it “is implicit in Article XI-A and is an inherent power of all Maryland counties.” These cases make clear that the powers of a charter county are not, as petitioners contend, limited to a narrow and constricted reading of the list of express powers delegated following the ratification of Art. | 1 | 1 |
Scull v. Montgomery Citizens Leaguegreen2 sentences1973XI-A by the passage of the express powers act was to take from the legislature and give to the County the exclusive power to enact local laws, and the reasons for this delegation of power, commonly called home rule, were first to see as far as possible the log jam of unacted on measures in the late days of the legislative session in Annapolis which had caused passage of laws that had not received careful scrutiny or due consideration and, second, ‘to permit local legislation to be enacted solely by those directly affected by it without interference from representatives of other sections of the 1973XI-A by the passage of the express powers act was to take from the legislature and give to the County the exclusive power to enact local laws, and the reasons for this delegation of power, commonly called home rule, were first to see as far as possible the log jam of unacted on measures in the late days of the legislative session in Annapolis which had caused passage of laws that had not received careful scrutiny or due consideration and, second, ‘to permit local legislation to be enacted solely by those directly affected by it without interference from representatives of other sections of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
County Council v. Investors Funding Corp.
green
2 sentences1997Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule ... if the language of § 5(S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A____” Investors Funding, 270 Md. at 413 , 312 A.2d 225 (emphasis added). 1997Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule ... if the language of § 5(S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A____” Investors Funding, 270 Md. at 413 , 312 A.2d 225 (emphasis added). | 2 | 1983–1997 |
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC
green
2 sentences2016Quoting from Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. 151, 160 , 252 A.2d 242, 246 (1969), we observed that “[gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the language of [the Express Powers Act] were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in [the laws governing charter counties].” Chesapeake Bay Found., 439 Md. at 602-03 , 97 A.3d at 143 . 2016Quoting from Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. 151, 160 , 252 A.2d 242, 246 (1969), we observed that “[gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the language of [the Express Powers Act] were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in [the laws governing charter counties].” Chesapeake Bay Found., 439 Md. at 602-03 , 97 A.3d at 143 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Snowden v. Anne Arundel County
green
2 sentences2002Describing § 5(S) as a “general welfare” clause that had been broadly construed to permit charter counties to legislate beyond the powers expressly enumerated in the Express Powers Act, id. at 432, 456 A.2d at 382 , we explained: *512 “Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the language of § 5(S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A and the language of that section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound.... .... [N]ot only does it emp 2002Describing § 5(S) as a “general welfare” clause that had been broadly construed to permit charter counties to legislate beyond the powers expressly enumerated in the Express Powers Act, id. at 432, 456 A.2d at 382 , we explained: *512 “Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the language of § 5(S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A and the language of that section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound.... .... [N]ot only does it emp | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Prince George's County v. Chillum-Adelphi Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983As we noted in Greenhalgh, supra, 253 Md. at 160 -61: "Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the *433 language of § 5 (S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A and the language of that section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound. .. . ".. . [N]ot only does it empower legislative action designed to carry out, exercise and implement enumerated powers, it goes further to add that power is given 'as well’ to ordain for the maintenance 1983As we noted in Greenhalgh, supra, 253 Md. at 160 -61: "Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the *433 language of § 5 (S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A and the language of that section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound. .. . ".. . [N]ot only does it empower legislative action designed to carry out, exercise and implement enumerated powers, it goes further to add that power is given 'as well’ to ordain for the maintenance | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bradshaw v. Prince George's County
green
2 sentences1983As we noted in Greenhalgh, supra, 253 Md. at 160 -61: "Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the *433 language of § 5 (S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A and the language of that section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound. .. . ".. . [N]ot only does it empower legislative action designed to carry out, exercise and implement enumerated powers, it goes further to add that power is given 'as well’ to ordain for the maintenance 1983As we noted in Greenhalgh, supra, 253 Md. at 160 -61: "Gratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule or the reasons which prompted it if the *433 language of § 5 (S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A and the language of that section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound. .. . ".. . [N]ot only does it empower legislative action designed to carry out, exercise and implement enumerated powers, it goes further to add that power is given 'as well’ to ordain for the maintenance | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Legg v. Mayor of Annapolis
green
2 sentences1974It says “[g] ratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule for the reasons which prompted it if the language of Section 5 (S) of Article 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Article 25A and the language of that Section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound.” In Anne Arundel County v. Moushabek, 269 Md. 419 , 306 A. 2d 517 (1973), we observed that a county charter “is to its legislative body as the Constitution of Maryland is to the General Assembly of Maryland.” We quoted from Legg v. Annapoli 1974Otherwise the express mandatory provisions of the Constitution would be of no avail or force whatever.” Id. at 221 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Anne Arundel County v. Moushabek
green
2 sentences1974It says “[g] ratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule for the reasons which prompted it if the language of Section 5 (S) of Article 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Article 25A and the language of that Section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound.” In Anne Arundel County v. Moushabek, 269 Md. 419 , 306 A. 2d 517 (1973), we observed that a county charter “is to its legislative body as the Constitution of Maryland is to the General Assembly of Maryland.” We quoted from Legg v. Annapoli 1974It says “[g] ratification would not be afforded the purposes of home rule for the reasons which prompted it if the language of Section 5 (S) of Article 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Article 25A and the language of that Section clearly indicates that such a construction is sound.” In Anne Arundel County v. Moushabek, 269 Md. 419 , 306 A. 2d 517 (1973), we observed that a county charter “is to its legislative body as the Constitution of Maryland is to the General Assembly of Maryland.” We quoted from Legg v. Annapoli | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.