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.
10 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authoritygreen2 sentences2011See Sugarloaf Citizens Ass’n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Auth., 323 Md. 641, 651 , 594 A.2d 1115, 1120 (1991). 7 The parties are in agreement that the Department is a State agency to which the APA applies. 2011See Sugarloaf Citizens Ass’n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Auth., 323 Md. 641, 651 , 594 A.2d 1115, 1120 (1991). 7 The parties are in agreement that the Department is a State agency to which the APA applies. | 4 | 5 |
Medical Waste Associates, Inc. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc.green2 sentences1998One of the elements of a contested case hearing, we said, “is whether the entity conducting the hearing acts in an adjudicatory capacity, ie. by determining the facts of a case and applying those facts to some legal standard in order to reach a conclusion.” Id. at 32, 680 A.2d at 479 (citing Sugarloaf Citizens Ass’n v. Northeast Waste Disposal Auth., 323 Md. 641, 653 , 594 A.2d 1115, 1121 (1991) and Medical Waste Assocs. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc., 327 Md. 596, 609 , 612 A.2d 241, 247 (1992)). 1998One of the elements of a contested case hearing, we said, “is whether the entity conducting the hearing acts in an adjudicatory capacity, ie. by determining the facts of a case and applying those facts to some legal standard in order to reach a conclusion.” Id. at 32, 680 A.2d at 479 (citing Sugarloaf Citizens Ass’n v. Northeast Waste Disposal Auth., 323 Md. 641, 653 , 594 A.2d 1115, 1121 (1991) and Medical Waste Assocs. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc., 327 Md. 596, 609 , 612 A.2d 241, 247 (1992)). | 2 | 3 |
Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Andersongreen2 sentences2007The matter before the Planning Board was a “contested case.” In Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172 , 909 A.2d 694 (2006), the Court of Appeals stated that the Commission is a State agency under § 10-202(b) with respect to contested cases. 395 Md. at 177, n. 1 , 909 A.2d 694 . 2007The matter before the Planning Board was a “contested case.” In Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172 , 909 A.2d 694 (2006), the Court of Appeals stated that the Commission is a State agency under § 10-202(b) with respect to contested cases. 395 Md. at 177, n. 1 , 909 A.2d 694 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland Pharmacists Ass'n v. Office of Attorney General
green
2 sentences2007Pharmacists Ass’n, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 115 Md.App. 650, 656 , 694 A.2d 492 (explaining that a “contested case” is “a proceeding before, or a dispute with, an agency that entitles a party to an agency hearing”), cert. denied, 347 Md. 154, 699 A.2d 1168 (1997). 2007Pharmacists Ass’n, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 115 Md.App. 650, 656 , 694 A.2d 492 (explaining that a “contested case” is “a proceeding before, or a dispute with, an agency that entitles a party to an agency hearing”), cert. denied, 347 Md. 154, 699 A.2d 1168 (1997). | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Modular Closet Systems, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury
green
2 sentences2007S.G. § 10 — 202(d)(1) defines a “contested case,” in pertinent part, as “a proceeding before an agency to determine: (i) a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by statute or constitution to be determined only *143 after an opportunity for an agency hearing....” (Emphasis added.) See Modular Closet Systems, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 315 Md. 438, 444 , 554 A.2d 1221 (1989) (defining “contested case” to include only those disputes that, by their nature, entitle a party to an agency hearing, regardless of whether a hearing was actually held); Sta 2007S.G. § 10 — 202(d)(1) defines a “contested case,” in pertinent part, as “a proceeding before an agency to determine: (i) a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by statute or constitution to be determined only *143 after an opportunity for an agency hearing....” (Emphasis added.) See Modular Closet Systems, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 315 Md. 438, 444 , 554 A.2d 1221 (1989) (defining “contested case” to include only those disputes that, by their nature, entitle a party to an agency hearing, regardless of whether a hearing was actually held); Sta | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State Department of Assessments & Taxation v. Clark
green
2 sentences2007S.G. § 10 — 202(d)(1) defines a “contested case,” in pertinent part, as “a proceeding before an agency to determine: (i) a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by statute or constitution to be determined only *143 after an opportunity for an agency hearing....” (Emphasis added.) See Modular Closet Systems, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 315 Md. 438, 444 , 554 A.2d 1221 (1989) (defining “contested case” to include only those disputes that, by their nature, entitle a party to an agency hearing, regardless of whether a hearing was actually held); Sta 2007S.G. § 10 — 202(d)(1) defines a “contested case,” in pertinent part, as “a proceeding before an agency to determine: (i) a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by statute or constitution to be determined only *143 after an opportunity for an agency hearing....” (Emphasis added.) See Modular Closet Systems, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 315 Md. 438, 444 , 554 A.2d 1221 (1989) (defining “contested case” to include only those disputes that, by their nature, entitle a party to an agency hearing, regardless of whether a hearing was actually held); Sta | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Angell v. Henneberry
green
2 sentences2001The State Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") sets forth detailed procedures for "contested case" hearings in certain circumstances, including when constitutional due process principles require an agency hearing. 15 Annotated Code of Maryland, State Government Article ("SG"), § 10-202(d)(1)(i). (defining contested case hearing, in part, as a "proceeding before an agency to determine . . . a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by . . . constitution to be determined only after an opportunity for an agency hearing. . ."). 16 However, due process principl 2001App. 279 , 300 , 607 A.2d 590 (1992). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
C.S. v. Prince George's County Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence1998One of the elements of a contested case hearing, we said, “is whether the entity conducting the hearing acts in an adjudicatory capacity, ie. by determining the facts of a case and applying those facts to some legal standard in order to reach a conclusion.” Id. at 32, 680 A.2d at 479 (citing Sugarloaf Citizens Ass’n v. Northeast Waste Disposal Auth., 323 Md. 641, 653 , 594 A.2d 1115, 1121 (1991) and Medical Waste Assocs. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc., 327 Md. 596, 609 , 612 A.2d 241, 247 (1992)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Banach v. State Commission on Human Relations
green
2 sentences1989Had the General Assembly intended that the words “contested case” mean only instances where a hearing is actually conducted, it is unlikely that it would have employed the word “proceeding” in defining a contested case as a “proceeding before an agency to determine ... a duty ... that is required by law to be determined only after an opportunity for an agency hearing.” As this Court stated in Banach v. State Comm’n on Human Rel., 277 Md. 502, 510 , 356 A.2d 242 (1976), “the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act ... in defining the term ‘contested case,’ clearly ascribes a somewhat broader mean 1989Had the General Assembly intended that the words “contested case” mean only instances where a hearing is actually conducted, it is unlikely that it would have employed the word “proceeding” in defining a contested case as a “proceeding before an agency to determine ... a duty ... that is required by law to be determined only after an opportunity for an agency hearing.” As this Court stated in Banach v. State Comm’n on Human Rel., 277 Md. 502, 510 , 356 A.2d 242 (1976), “the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act ... in defining the term ‘contested case,’ clearly ascribes a somewhat broader mean | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.
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.