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.
7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2000Comm’n, 305 Md. 145, 161 , 501 A.2d 1307, 1315 (1986) (“the contemporaneous interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with its administration is entitled to great deference, especially when the interpretation has been applied consistently and for a long period of time”); Consumer Protection v. Consumer Pub., supra, 304 Md. [731,] 759, 501 A.2d [48,] 63 [(1985)] (“The consistent construction of a statute by the agency responsible for administering it is entitled to considerable weight”). [Footnote omitted.] In the instant case, the Legislature adopted the specific deference standard in 2000Comm’n, 305 Md. 145, 161 , 501 A.2d 1307, 1315 (1986) (“the contemporaneous interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with its administration is entitled to great deference, especially when the interpretation has been applied consistently and for a long period of time”); Consumer Protection v. Consumer Pub., supra, 304 Md. [731,] 759, 501 A.2d [48,] 63 [(1985)] (“The consistent construction of a statute by the agency responsible for administering it is entitled to considerable weight”). [Footnote omitted.] In the instant case, the Legislature adopted the specific deference standard in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hanna v. Bd. of Ed. of Wicomico Co.
green
2 sentences2022The court found Hanna, 200 Md. 49 , instructive, noting that although it was a taxpayer standing case, “it stands for the proposition that there are circumstances where courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of an administrative agency acting within its authority unless such exercise is fraudulent or corrupt or such abuse of discretion as to amount to breach of trust.” Because the Board departed from this standard of review, “it acted arbitrarily and capriciously.” With regard to the Board’s Second Opinion, the court found that Montgomery Park 21 “knew of the basis for its p 2022The court found Hanna, 200 Md. 49 , instructive, noting that although it was a taxpayer standing case, “it stands for the proposition that there are circumstances where courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of an administrative agency acting within its authority unless such exercise is fraudulent or corrupt or such abuse of discretion as to amount to breach of trust.” Because the Board departed from this standard of review, “it acted arbitrarily and capriciously.” With regard to the Board’s Second Opinion, the court found that Montgomery Park 21 “knew of the basis for its p | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Friends of Ridge v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
green
2 sentences2009In Friends of the Ridge v. BG & E, 120 Md.App. 444, 466 , 707 A.2d 866 (1998), Judge Harrell clearly set out for this Court the mandatory dictates of the deference requirement. 2009In Friends of the Ridge v. BG & E, 120 Md.App. 444, 466 , 707 A.2d 866 (1998), Judge Harrell clearly set out for this Court the mandatory dictates of the deference requirement. | 2 | 2005–2009 |
Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
green
1 sentence2023Id. 43 Skidmore deference, which derives its name from Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), was the primary deference doctrine used by the federal courts from 1944 until it was displaced by Chevron deference in 1984 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s articulation of a more highly deferential standard that federal courts apply when an agency interprets a statute that the agency is charged with administering. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Maryland Department of Environment v. Anacostia Riverkeeper
green
1 sentence2023Id. 43 Skidmore deference, which derives its name from Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), was the primary deference doctrine used by the federal courts from 1944 until it was displaced by Chevron deference in 1984 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s articulation of a more highly deferential standard that federal courts apply when an agency interprets a statute that the agency is charged with administering. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Department of Human Resources v. Howard
green
2 sentences2007Howard, 168 Md.App. at 663-72 , 897 A.2d at 928 - *357 33. 2007Howard, 168 Md.App. at 663-72 , 897 A.2d at 928 - *357 33. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.