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.
51 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1963–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Comptroller of Marylandgreen2 sentences2010Of course, whether an agency is expressly authorized to impose a particular sanction is a matter of statutory interpretation. “[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a Statute.” Miller v. Comptroller, 398 Md. 272, 282 , 920 A.2d 467, 473 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2010Of course, whether an agency is expressly authorized to impose a particular sanction is a matter of statutory interpretation. “[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a Statute.” Miller v. Comptroller, 398 Md. 272, 282 , 920 A.2d 467, 473 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.green2 sentences2010Miller v. Comptroller of Maryland, 398 Md. 272, 282 , 920 A.2d 467, 473 (2007) (“ ‘[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a statute.’ ”) (quoting Maryland Comm’n on Human Relations v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 295 Md. 586, 592-93 , 457 A.2d 1146, 1149 (1983)). 2010Miller v. Comptroller of Maryland, 398 Md. 272, 282 , 920 A.2d 467, 473 (2007) (“ ‘[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a statute.’ ”) (quoting Maryland Comm’n on Human Relations v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 295 Md. 586, 592-93 , 457 A.2d 1146, 1149 (1983)). | 2 | 4 |
Board of Child Care of the Baltimore Annual Conference of the Methodist Church, Inc. v. Harkergreen2 sentences2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight 2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight | 2 | 3 |
State v. Ghajarigreen2 sentences2015In any event, the canons of statutory interpretation — applicable to interpretation of regulations, see Christopher, 381 Md. at 209 , 849 A.2d at 58 (“[T]he principles governing our interpretation of a statute apply when we interpret an agency rule or regulation.” (Citations omitted)) — provide that where “two statutes, one general and one specific, are found to conflict, the specific statute will be regarded as an exception to the general statute!,]” and “[i]n such a situation, the specific statute is controlling and the general statute is repealed to the extent of the inconsistency.” State v 2015In any event, the canons of statutory interpretation — applicable to interpretation of regulations, see Christopher, 381 Md. at 209 , 849 A.2d at 58 (“[T]he principles governing our interpretation of a statute apply when we interpret an agency rule or regulation.” (Citations omitted)) — provide that where “two statutes, one general and one specific, are found to conflict, the specific statute will be regarded as an exception to the general statute!,]” and “[i]n such a situation, the specific statute is controlling and the general statute is repealed to the extent of the inconsistency.” State v | 2 | 2 |
Christopher v. Montgomery County Department of Health & Human Servicesgreen2 sentences2015In any event, the canons of statutory interpretation — applicable to interpretation of regulations, see Christopher, 381 Md. at 209 , 849 A.2d at 58 (“[T]he principles governing our interpretation of a statute apply when we interpret an agency rule or regulation.” (Citations omitted)) — provide that where “two statutes, one general and one specific, are found to conflict, the specific statute will be regarded as an exception to the general statute!,]” and “[i]n such a situation, the specific statute is controlling and the general statute is repealed to the extent of the inconsistency.” State v 2015In any event, the canons of statutory interpretation — applicable to interpretation of regulations, see Christopher, 381 Md. at 209 , 849 A.2d at 58 (“[T]he principles governing our interpretation of a statute apply when we interpret an agency rule or regulation.” (Citations omitted)) — provide that where “two statutes, one general and one specific, are found to conflict, the specific statute will be regarded as an exception to the general statute!,]” and “[i]n such a situation, the specific statute is controlling and the general statute is repealed to the extent of the inconsistency.” State v | 2 | 2 |
Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. v. Department of Employment & Traininggreen2 sentences2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight 2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight | 2 | 2 |
Morris v. Prince George's Countygreen2 sentences2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight 2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight | 2 | 2 |
Maryland Classified Employees Ass'n v. Schaefergreen2 sentences2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight 2000Classified Employees Asso., Inc. v. Governor, 325 Md. 19, 33 , 599 A.2d 91, 98 (1991) (“legislative acquiescence in a long-standing administrative construction ‘ “gives rise to a strong presumption that the interpretation is correct” ’ ”); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613 , 573 A.2d 1346, 1354 (1990) (“long-standing administrative construction of [the statute] and its predecessor statutes by an agency charged with administering them ... is entitled to deference”); Board v. Harker, 316 Md. 683, 699 , 561 A.2d 219, 227 (1989) (“the agency rule is entitled to considerable weight | 2 | 2 |
Prince George's County v. Blumberggreen2 sentences1991Even under this language, we took the position that where a hearing was provided for in connection with a *667 permit or license, the proceeding was a “contested case.” See, e.g., Prince George’s Co. v. Blumberg, 288 Md. 275, 294-296 , 418 A.2d 1155, 1166-1167 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1083 , 101 S.Ct. 869 , 66 L.Ed.2d 808 (1981) (water and sewer permits); Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureau, 236 Md. 476, 479-480, 484 , 204 A.2d 521, 523, 525 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 849 , 86 S.Ct. 95 , 15 L.Ed.2d 88 (1965) (application for taxicab operator’s license). 1991Even under this language, we took the position that where a hearing was provided for in connection with a *667 permit or license, the proceeding was a “contested case.” See, e.g., Prince George’s Co. v. Blumberg, 288 Md. 275, 294-296 , 418 A.2d 1155, 1166-1167 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1083 , 101 S.Ct. 869 , 66 L.Ed.2d 808 (1981) (water and sewer permits); Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureau, 236 Md. 476, 479-480, 484 , 204 A.2d 521, 523, 525 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 849 , 86 S.Ct. 95 , 15 L.Ed.2d 88 (1965) (application for taxicab operator’s license). | 2 | 2 |
Maryland Transportation Authority v. Kinggreen2 sentences2010Auth. v. King, 369 Md. 274, 288-89 , 799 A.2d 1246, 1254 (2002)); see also Noland, 386 Md. at 574 n. 3, 873 A.2d at 1156 n. 3 (“[A] reviewing court must determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). “[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a Statute.” Miller v. Comptroller of Md., 398 Md. 272, 282 , 920 A.2d 467, 473 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2010Auth. v. King, 369 Md. 274, 288-89 , 799 A.2d 1246, 1254 (2002)); see also Noland, 386 Md. at 574 n. 3, 873 A.2d at 1156 n. 3 (“[A] reviewing court must determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). “[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a Statute.” Miller v. Comptroller of Md., 398 Md. 272, 282 , 920 A.2d 467, 473 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Servicegreen2 sentences2003However, in Morgan , the Fourth Circuit noted that although the Accardi doctrine originally contemplated that an agency’s failure to comply with its own rules would automatically nullify its action, referring to Heffner , the Supreme Court has since required that claimants demonstrate prejudice resulting from the violation unless “the rules were not intended primarily to confer important procedural benefits upon individuals in the face of otherwise unfettered discretion” or unless “an agency required by rule to exercise independent discretion has failed to do so.” Morgan, 193 F.3d at 267 (quot 2003However, in Morgan , the Fourth Circuit noted that although the Accardi doctrine originally contemplated that an agency’s failure to comply with its own rules would automatically nullify its action, referring to Heffner , the Supreme Court has since required that claimants demonstrate prejudice resulting from the violation unless “the rules were not intended primarily to confer important procedural benefits upon individuals in the face of otherwise unfettered discretion” or unless “an agency required by rule to exercise independent discretion has failed to do so.” Morgan, 193 F.3d at 267 (quot | 1 | 2 |
Blumberg v. Prince George's Countygreen2 sentences1991Even under this language, we took the position that where a hearing was provided for in connection with a *667 permit or license, the proceeding was a “contested case.” See, e.g., Prince George’s Co. v. Blumberg, 288 Md. 275, 294-296 , 418 A.2d 1155, 1166-1167 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1083 , 101 S.Ct. 869 , 66 L.Ed.2d 808 (1981) (water and sewer permits); Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureau, 236 Md. 476, 479-480, 484 , 204 A.2d 521, 523, 525 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 849 , 86 S.Ct. 95 , 15 L.Ed.2d 88 (1965) (application for taxicab operator’s license). 1991Even under this language, we took the position that where a hearing was provided for in connection with a *667 permit or license, the proceeding was a “contested case.” See, e.g., Prince George’s Co. v. Blumberg, 288 Md. 275, 294-296 , 418 A.2d 1155, 1166-1167 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1083 , 101 S.Ct. 869 , 66 L.Ed.2d 808 (1981) (water and sewer permits); Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureau, 236 Md. 476, 479-480, 484 , 204 A.2d 521, 523, 525 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 849 , 86 S.Ct. 95 , 15 L.Ed.2d 88 (1965) (application for taxicab operator’s license). | 1 | 2 |
Green v. H & R BLOCK, INC.green1 sentence2022An agency relationship is fiduciary in nature, and its creation “turns on the parties’ intentions as manifested by their agreements or actions.” Green v. H&R Block, Inc., 355 Md. 488, 503 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Department of Natural Resources v. Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maryland Aviation Administration v. Nolandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Collins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Donocam Assoc. v. Wash. Sub. San. Comm'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carriage Hill Cabin John, Inc. v. Maryland Health Resources Planning Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Clark Eugene Heffnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morton v. Ruizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chrysler Corp. v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCullough v. Wittnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Minnesota Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Department of Commercegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Van Pelt v. State Board for Community Colleges & Occupational Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Concerned Parents of Stepchildren v. Mitchellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walters v. Petrolane-Northeast Gas Service, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Roosevelt Hospital v. New York State Labor Relations Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Washington State Liquor Control Board v. Washington State Personnel Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Colburn v. Personnel Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rose v. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dorsey v. Beadsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Generalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Larionoffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bell v. Phillips Petroleum Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Appeal of Brooksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
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 | 3 | 1997–2007 |
Board of School Commissioners v. James
green
2 sentences2003In Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City v. James, 96 Md.App. 401, 421-22 , 625 A.2d 361, 372 , cert. denied, 332 Md. 382 , 631 A.2d 452 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals, after discussing the Accardi exception, stated: “Similarly, a failure to comply with a published statement of ‘policy,’or ‘internal documents’ to guide employees, or agency ‘guidelines,’ has been held not to invalidate agency action, absent a showing of prejudice.” [Citations omitted.] [Emphasis added.] *484 Then, in Anastasi v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 472 , 491 n. 8, 719 A.2d 980 , 990 n. 8 (1998), the C 2003In Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City v. James, 96 Md.App. 401, 421-22 , 625 A.2d 361, 372 , cert. denied, 332 Md. 382 , 631 A.2d 452 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals, after discussing the Accardi exception, stated: “Similarly, a failure to comply with a published statement of ‘policy,’or ‘internal documents’ to guide employees, or agency ‘guidelines,’ has been held not to invalidate agency action, absent a showing of prejudice.” [Citations omitted.] [Emphasis added.] *484 Then, in Anastasi v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 472 , 491 n. 8, 719 A.2d 980 , 990 n. 8 (1998), the C | 3 | 1998–2003 |
Anastasi v. Montgomery County
green
2 sentences2003In Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City v. James, 96 Md.App. 401, 421-22 , 625 A.2d 361, 372 , cert. denied, 332 Md. 382 , 631 A.2d 452 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals, after discussing the Accardi exception, stated: “Similarly, a failure to comply with a published statement of ‘policy,’or ‘internal documents’ to guide employees, or agency ‘guidelines,’ has been held not to invalidate agency action, absent a showing of prejudice.” [Citations omitted.] [Emphasis added.] *484 Then, in Anastasi v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 472 , 491 n. 8, 719 A.2d 980 , 990 n. 8 (1998), the C 2003In Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City v. James, 96 Md.App. 401, 421-22 , 625 A.2d 361, 372 , cert. denied, 332 Md. 382 , 631 A.2d 452 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals, after discussing the Accardi exception, stated: “Similarly, a failure to comply with a published statement of ‘policy,’or ‘internal documents’ to guide employees, or agency ‘guidelines,’ has been held not to invalidate agency action, absent a showing of prejudice.” [Citations omitted.] [Emphasis added.] *484 Then, in Anastasi v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 472 , 491 n. 8, 719 A.2d 980 , 990 n. 8 (1998), the C | 3 | 2002–2003 |
Carven v. State Retirement & Pension System
green
2 sentences2020These permits implicate a mixture of federal and state statutes and regulations. “[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a statute.” Kor-Ko, 451 Md. at 416 (quoting Carven, 416 Md. at 407 ). 2011In Bouie v. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 407 N.J.Super. 518 , 972 A.2d 401 (2009), the New Jersey intermediate appellate court held, inter alia, that the HCYP benefits termination hearing required by federal law was a “contested case” under the New Jersey APA. 14 Codified at N.J.S.A. 52:14B-2(b), the New Jersey APA defines a “contested case” as “a proceeding, including any licensing proceeding, in which the legal rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of specific parties are required by constitutional right or by statute to be determined by an | 2 | 2011–2020 |
Kushell v. Department of Natural Resources
green
2 sentences2010Our primary objective “is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.” Kushell, 385 Md. at 576 , 870 A.2d at 193 . 2010Our primary objective “is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.” Kushell, 385 Md. at 576 , 870 A.2d at 193 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
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 |
General Motors Corp. v. Bark
green
2 sentences2004General Motors Corp. v. Bark, 79 Md.App. 68, 88-89 , 555 A.2d 542 (1989). 2004General Motors Corp. v. Bark, 79 Md.App. 68, 88-89 , 555 A.2d 542 (1989). | 2 | 2002–2004 |
BOARD OF EDUC. OF AA CTY. v. Barbano
green
2 sentences2002In determining whether an agency rule has sufficient force and effect to trigger an application of the Accardi doctrine, Maryland courts generally look to see whether it “affects individual rights and obligations,” See James, 96 Md.App. at 422, 625 A.2d 361 (quoting Peter Raven-Han sen, Regulatory Estoppel: When Agencies Break Their Own “Laws”, 64 Tex. L.Rev. 1, 16 (1985)), or whether it confers “important procedural benefits upon individuals.” Board of Education of Anne Arundel County v. Barbano, 45 Md.App. 27, 41 , 411 A.2d 124 (1980). 2002In determining whether an agency rule has sufficient force and effect to trigger an application of the Accardi doctrine, Maryland courts generally look to see whether it “affects individual rights and obligations,” See James, 96 Md.App. at 422, 625 A.2d 361 (quoting Peter Raven-Han sen, Regulatory Estoppel: When Agencies Break Their Own “Laws”, 64 Tex. L.Rev. 1, 16 (1985)), or whether it confers “important procedural benefits upon individuals.” Board of Education of Anne Arundel County v. Barbano, 45 Md.App. 27, 41 , 411 A.2d 124 (1980). | 2 | 1998–2002 |
Slutter v. Homer
green
2 sentences1969In short, the agency doctrine is predicated on a status rather than on inference of fact.” ( 244 Md. at 139 , 223 A. 2d at 145 .) As Judge Oppenheimer indicated, the imputation of negligence depends upon the existence of a state of facts establishing the owner’s right to control, and accordingly, the presumption may be rebutted by a showing of a contrary state of facts. 1969In short, the agency doctrine is predicated on a status rather than on inference of fact.” ( 244 Md. at 139 , 223 A. 2d at 145 .) As Judge Oppenheimer indicated, the imputation of negligence depends upon the existence of a state of facts establishing the owner’s right to control, and accordingly, the presumption may be rebutted by a showing of a contrary state of facts. | 2 | 1969–1999 |
United States Ex Rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy
red
2 sentences1998Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 , 74 S.Ct. 499 , 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954)). 8 In determining whether an agency rule has sufficient force and effect to trigger an application of the Accardi doctrine, Maryland courts generally look to see whether it “affects individual rights and obligations,” See James, 96 Md.App. at 422 , 625 A.2d 361 (quoting Peter Raven-Hansen, Regulatory Estoppel: When Agencies Break Their Own “Laws”, 64 Tex. L.Rev. 1, 16 (1985)), or whether it confers “important procedural benefits upon individuals.” Board of Education of Anne Arundel County v. Barbano, 45 Md.App. 27, 1998Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 , 74 S.Ct. 499 , 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954)). 8 In determining whether an agency rule has sufficient force and effect to trigger an application of the Accardi doctrine, Maryland courts generally look to see whether it “affects individual rights and obligations,” See James, 96 Md.App. at 422 , 625 A.2d 361 (quoting Peter Raven-Hansen, Regulatory Estoppel: When Agencies Break Their Own “Laws”, 64 Tex. L.Rev. 1, 16 (1985)), or whether it confers “important procedural benefits upon individuals.” Board of Education of Anne Arundel County v. Barbano, 45 Md.App. 27, | 2 | 1978–1998 |
Eliason v. State Roads Commission
green
2 sentences1985Article 41, § 255 of the Administrative Procedure Act grants the right to judicial review to any party “aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case.” A “contested case” was defined in Art. 41, § 244(d) as “a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, statutory entitlements, or privileges of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined after an agency hearing.” 5 Unless otherwise required by statute, “the necessity of a hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the nature of the interest of t 1980A "contested case” is defined in the APA as "a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, statutory entitlements, or privileges of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined after an agency hearing.” Ordinarily, unless otherwise required by statute, "the necessity of a hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the nature of the interest of the person seeking relief.” Eliason v. State Roads Comm., 231 Md. 257, 260 , 189 A.2d 649, 651 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 914 (1963). "[W]here a public administ | 2 | 1980–1985 |
Eliason v. State Roads Commission
green
2 sentences1985Article 41, § 255 of the Administrative Procedure Act grants the right to judicial review to any party “aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case.” A “contested case” was defined in Art. 41, § 244(d) as “a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, statutory entitlements, or privileges of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined after an agency hearing.” 5 Unless otherwise required by statute, “the necessity of a hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the nature of the interest of t 1985Article 41, § 255 of the Administrative Procedure Act grants the right to judicial review to any party “aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case.” A “contested case” was defined in Art. 41, § 244(d) as “a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, statutory entitlements, or privileges of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined after an agency hearing.” 5 Unless otherwise required by statute, “the necessity of a hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the nature of the interest of t | 2 | 1980–1985 |
Albert v. Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences1985Article 41, § 255 of the Administrative Procedure Act grants the right to judicial review to any party “aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case.” A “contested case” was defined in Art. 41, § 244(d) as “a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, statutory entitlements, or privileges of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined after an agency hearing.” 5 Unless otherwise required by statute, “the necessity of a hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the nature of the interest of t 1985Article 41, § 255 of the Administrative Procedure Act grants the right to judicial review to any party “aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case.” A “contested case” was defined in Art. 41, § 244(d) as “a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, statutory entitlements, or privileges of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined after an agency hearing.” 5 Unless otherwise required by statute, “the necessity of a hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the nature of the interest of t | 2 | 1963–1985 |
Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources
green
1 sentence2022Ramsay, Scarlett & Co., Inc., 302 Md. at 834 ; Schwartz, 385 Md. at 554 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ramsay, Scarlett & Co. v. Comptroller of Treasury
green
1 sentence2022Ramsay, Scarlett & Co., Inc., 302 Md. at 834 ; Schwartz, 385 Md. at 554 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Anne Arundel County v. Muir
green
1 sentence2020Finally, the Court of Appeals added a third requirement in Pollock that a complainant must “show that prejudice to him or her (or it) resulted from the violation in order for the agency decision to be struck down.” Id. at 504 . 15 The doctrine of estoppel does not determine the outcome in this case, nor did the parties raise the issue below, but we note that, although the doctrine of estoppel ordinarily does not apply against the State, it can apply to estop a chartered county on the basis of “positive acts by . . . officers that have induced the action of the adverse party” where the adverse | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kor-Ko Ltd. v. Maryland Department of the Environment
green
1 sentence2020These permits implicate a mixture of federal and state statutes and regulations. “[T]he interpretation of an agency rule is governed by the same principles that govern the interpretation of a statute.” Kor-Ko, 451 Md. at 416 (quoting Carven, 416 Md. at 407 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Butz v. Economou green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Travers v. Baltimore Police Department green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Bouie v. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Maddox green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State Department of Assessments & Taxation v. Clark green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Santiago Martinez-Camargo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, John D. Ashcroft, Kevin D. Rooney, and Brian Perryman green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Marshall v. Lansing green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Jordan Towing, Inc. v. Hebbville Auto Repair, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| United States v. Morgan green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Angell v. Henneberry green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General v. Consumer Publishing Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Terranova v. Board of Trustees of Fire & Police Employees Retirement System green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Mayor of Annapolis v. Annapolis Waterfront Co. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureau green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Banach v. State Commission on Human Relations green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Board of County Commissioners v. Kines green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Yellin v. United States green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Vitarelli v. Seaton green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Penna. Human Relations Comm. v. U. S. Steel Corp. green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.