Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners were nonresidents who neither lived nor worked in Maryland but had a source of income in the State. In 2005, the Comptroller of the Treasury issued a notice of assessment against Petitioners' 2004 joint Maryland nonresident income tax returns for failure to pay the Special Nonresident Tax (SNRT). The assessment included the amount owed for the SNRT and interest. Petitioners challenged, on federal and state constitutional grounds, the State's authority to impose the SNRT. The tax court (1) declared the SNRT to be constitutional, and (2) denied Petitioners' request to abate the accrued interest, reasoning that the court lacked the authority to do so. The circuit court affirmed as to the constitutionality of the tax but determined that the tax court could abate the interest assessment. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the SNRT does not violate the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Privileged and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution; (2) the SNRT does not violate Maryland's equal protection doctrine; and (3) the tax court's power of review extends to the abatement of interest assessments. Remanded to consider whether Petitioners were entitled to the abatement of interest.

Appellant Tonya Walker received housing benefits administered pursuant to the Section Eight Housing Program, which required certain family obligations to be satisfied for continued participation in the program. Appellant's housing benefits were later terminated by the Department of Housing and Community Development for her alleged violations of the family obligations. Appellant challenged that decision at an informal administrative hearing. A hearing officer affirmed the Department's decision. Appellant sought judicial review, asserting that the informal hearing was intended to be a "contested case" under Maryland's APA, to which certain rights and procedures apply but were not followed in her case. The circuit court affirmed the Department's decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that judicial review of the decision could not be conducted on the present record because the hearing officer did not develop a record that contained the requisite factual findings, including resolution of disputed facts, and a clear statement of the rationale for the decision. Remanded.

A landowner submitted a site development plan to the county planning board, proposing to construct a mixed-use condominium building. Joel Broida, who lived across the street from the landowner's parcel of land, filed a motion to deny approval of the site development plan. The planning board approved the plan. Broida appealed. A hearing examiner dismissed the appeal, holding that Broida lacked standing. Broida appealed. The board of appeals (Board) split evenly on the issue of Broida's standing and decided to re-vote at a later date. The landowner then filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, declaring that the Board's split decision was final and required the appeal to be dismissed. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the landowner. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Broida had standing to appeal. The court therefore did not address whether there was a final Board decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) there was no final administrative decision and, therefore, the landowner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies; and (2) because there was no final administrative decision, the lower courts erred in reaching the merits of the case, and the declaratory judgment action should have been dismissed. Remanded.

Tyrone Lawson was a seventeen-year veteran of the Bowie State University Police Department until his termination for violating the Department's chain of command policy. Specifically, Lawson had drafted a letter disclosing alleged abuses by his fellow officers, and instead of reporting the violations to the Department's Chief of Police, Lawson presented the letter to the university's vice president of student affairs. Lawson was later fired for, among other things, insubordination. Lawson sought relief, arguing that he was entitled to whistleblower protection because the letter constituted a "protected disclosure" as contemplated by Md. Code Ann. State Pers. & Pens. 5-305. The ALJ concluded that Lawson's letter was not a protected disclosure because it was part of Lawson's crusade to improve the Department. The circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of certiorari and reversed, holding that the ALJ improperly conflated Lawson's personal motivation for disclosure with the statutory requirement that an employee have a reasonable belief that the information disclosed evidences a violation. Remanded.

The Maryland State Retirement System (System) filed a claim against Milliman, an actuary, asserting that Milliman had understated the contributions required to fund three of the State's ten retirement and pension systems because of Milliman's misinterpretation of a particular data code. The Retirement System Procurement Officer determined that Milliman had failed to comply with its contractual duties and awarded damages to the System. On appeal, the State Board of Contract Appeals determined that the actuary had substantially breached its contracts with the System and affirmed the damages. The circuit court affirmed the Board's findings that Milliman breached its contracts with the System and affirmed the award of lost investment earnings but reversed the Board's award of amounts equaling lost contributions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, holding (1) Milliman was liable to the System for repeatedly misinterpreting a data code; (2) the System was not negligent in the development or transmission of data provided to Milliman and, therefore, contributory negligence did not bar the System's recovery; and (3) the circuit court erroneously reduced the Board's damage award representing lost contributions. The Court, therefore, vacated the judgment of the circuit court and affirmed the Board's decision.

In a declaratory judgment action, the Court of Appeals was asked to consider whether records of an investigation undertaken by the county police department's internal affairs division related to alleged violations of administrative rules of the department by two of its officers in connection with an automobile accident involving the assistant fire chief can be disclosed to the county's inspector general. After a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court ordered the disclosure of the records of the internal investigation, but not information of a personal nature. The Court of Appeals held that records of an internal investigation pertaining to the alleged violation of administrative rules are personnel records pursuant to Md. Code Ann. State Gov't 10-616(i) and, therefore, may not be disclosed under the Maryland Public Information Act to the county inspector general. Accordingly, the Court vacated judgment of the circuit court and remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment in conformance with this opinion.

Respondent Frank Loane filed a request for an administrative hearing to show cause why his driver's license should not be suspended after he refused to submit to a chemical breath test upon being stopped by a police officer for failing to obey lane directions. Respondent argued that his license could not be suspended unless the MVA first proved where the stop occurred, whether on a highway or private property used by the public in general, in accordance with Md. Code Ann. Transp. II 16-205.1. The ALJ rejected respondent's argument that the MVA failed to prove the location and then suspended respondent's driver's license for 120 days pursuant to the statute. Respondent filed a petition for judicial review of the ALJ's decision. The circuit court determined there was not substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding and reversed and remanded the case. The MVA filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the statute does not require the MVA to prove at the show cause administrative hearing that the officer stopped respondent on a highway or private property used by the public in general. Remanded.

The county planning board approved a detailed site plan for a parcel of commercial property in Prince George's County. The county district council elected to review the planning board's approval, after which several individuals, including petitioners Rishi Gosain and Abid Chaudhry, filed with the district council an appeal of the planning board's approval. The district council ultimately affirmed the planning board's decision, and petitioners filed a petition for judicial review of the final decision by the district council in the circuit court. The circuit court entered an order dismissing the petition, finding the petitioners lacked standing to bring the action. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed but for different reasons than the lower courts. At issue was the meaning of the phrase "any person or taxpayer in Prince George's County" under Md. Ann. Code art. 28, 8-106(e), which authorizes appeals of final district council decisions. The Court found the petitioners lacked standing to bring the action because they neither resided or had a property interest in a residence in the county, nor owned or leased real property in the county, nor paid property taxes to the county.

The Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County voted to grant a water services and wastewater franchise to two related companies, after which it approved an agreement providing for the sale and transfer to the companies of county-owned water and wastewater facilities. County residents filed petitions for judicial review of the decisions. The circuit court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment on the issue of its right to award the franchise agreements and ultimately concluded that the Board had a right to sell the county-owned property. The residents appealed, arguing that Md. Code Ann. art. 25, 8(a) prohibits the Board from conveying the property. At issue was whether Md. Code Ann. art. 25, 8(a) prohibited the Board from selling facilities that will continue to provide essential services to county citizens. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Board was not prohibited from entering into the asset purchase agreements at issue.

Developer Eastern Petroleum Company sought the necessary approvals for the proposed expansion of a gas station from the appropriate local agencies, each of which held public hearings. The respondents, a group of nearby residents (citizens), appeared in opposition at the agency level. After the hearings the local agencies granted both zoning approvals. The district council elected to review the zoning decisions, but before any review proceedings, the council withdrew its election to review the local decisions and declared the agency decisions final. The citizens filed an action for judicial review of the council's decision in the circuit court, which dismissed the action. On appeal, the court of special appeals reversed and remanded. At issue was whether the withdrawal of election to review was a final decision and whether the administrative exhaustion requirement precluded the citizens' claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals, holding that (1) the citizens were eligible to seek review of the council decision, (2) the citizens exhausted their administrative remedies by appearing at the agency hearings, and (3) the district council may not withdraw its election to review and finalize the local agency decisions without following the statutory procedure to review.