Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The assessment of real property in the State for property tax purposes is calculated by reference to the value on the “date of finality,” which is defined as “January 1, immediately before the 1st taxable year to which the assessment based on the new value is applicable.” Petitioner appealed her 2011 tax assessment of a condominium she owned and occupied. The Tax Court concluded that the Tax Property Article did not prohibit the court from taking into account sales of comparable properties that occur after the date of finality in determining the value of a property on the date of finality and, thus, relied on sales of comparable properties that occurred several months after the date of finality. The Circuit Court ruled that the Tax Court erred in considering evidence of post-date of finality sales of comparable properties. The Court of Special Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Tax Court may consider the sale of comparable properties occurring within a reasonable time after the date of finality to assess the value of the property; and (2) substantial evidence in the record supported the Tax Court’s assessment of Petitioner’s property, relying on the post-date of finality sales. View "Lane v. Supervisor of Assessments of Montgomery County" on Justia Law

The Consumer Protection Division of Maryland’s Office of the Attorney General (CPD) concluded that Petitioner and his companies engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The CPD issued sanctions, imposed civil penalties, and assessed costs. Thereafter, the Maryland State Board of Plumbing (the Board) opened a complaint against Petitioner alleging that Petitioner had violated the Maryland Plumbing act (MPA). The Board’s case largely consisted of the CPD’s findings and conclusions. The Board, by application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, adopted the findings of fact made by the CPD and concluded that Petitioner violated the MPA. The Board revoked Petitioner’s master plumber license and imposed a civil penalty. The circuit court ruled that the Board properly invoked collateral estoppel in adopting the CPD’s findings of fact. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is permissible in this State and can be invoked to grant preclusive effect to an administrative order; and (2) Petitioner’s double jeopardy protections were not violated when the Board and the CPD both fined him for the same conduct. View "Garrity v. State Bd. of Plumbing" on Justia Law

A Guy Named Moe, LLC (Moe), a foreign limited liability company doing business in Maryland, and Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC both operate a chain of restaurants. In 2012, Chipotle applied for a special exception to build a restaurant approximately 425 feet from Moe’s Southwest Grill. The City of Annapolis’s Board of Appeals unanimously approved Chipotle’s request. Thereafter, Moe filed a petition for judicial review. The circuit court dismissed Moe’s petition, finding that Moe lacked standing because it was not a taxpayer under Md. Code Ann. Land Use 4-401(a). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the petition was void ab initio because, at the time it was filed, Moe’s had lost its right to do business in Maryland because of its failure to register; and (2) Moe was not "a person aggrieved" for standing purposes. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Moe can Maintain its suit; but (2) Moe was not aggrieved for standing purposes. View "Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC" on Justia Law

In two cases before the Workers’ Compensation Commission, the Commission concluded that under Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-806, the amount owed to the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) by the employers in these cases - the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) and Baltimore County - is 6.5 percent of the Commission’s award of compensation prior to the deduction of any statutory offset. The circuit courts affirmed the decisions of the Commission. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The MTA and the County each filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them in this opinion to address the question of whether the SIF assessment under section 9-806 should be calculated based on the amount of an award prior to the statutory offsets granted by Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-610 and 9-503(e). The Court answered the question in the affirmative and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. View "Injured Workers' Ins. Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund" on Justia Law

Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority cited Reliable Contracting Company for violating Md. Code Ann. Pub. Util. Cos. 12-101, under which advance notice must be given to the one-call system of certain types of excavation, and imposed a civil monetary penalty. Reliable Contracting petitioned for judicial review, asserting that the Authority’s enabling statute conferred judicial power on a non-judicial body in violation of separation of powers principles. Reliable Contracting also contended that the statute failed to provide adequate guidance to the Authority for the assessment of such penalties. The circuit court upheld the constitutionality of the statute. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded, holding (1) the Authority is an administrative agency in the executive branch of State government that exercises quasi-judicial powers subject to judicial review, and therefore, its enabling law is not contrary to the State Constitution’s Judicial Vesting Clause or Separation of Powers Clause; and (2) because the Authority is an administrative agency, Md. Code Ann. State Gov't 10-1001 provides guidelines for the exercise of its discretion in assessing civil penalties. View "Reliable Contracting Co. v. Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Auth." on Justia Law

In 2012, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) adopted new procedures regarding the application process for surgical abortion facilities, including the requirement that individuals and other entities obtain a license from the Secretary of DHMH before establishing or operating such a facility. In 2013, Petitioner, pursuant to the Public Information Act, requested the records of all applications submitted for a license under these regulations. DHMH responded by providing copies of the applications but with certain information redacted. DMHM filed a petition seeking judicial confirmation for its continued denial of the information. The circuit court granted the petition, indicating that DHMH’s decision to redact was made on the basis of public safety concerns for those individuals who proposed to operate the facilities. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that redaction and denial of the relevant information in this case was necessary to protect the public interest from a substantial injury. View "Glenn v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene" on Justia Law

Respondent was stopped for failure to securely fasten a registration plate and was arrested after a police officer observed signs of impairment. Respondent agreed to take an alcohol concentration test, which he passed, but Respondent refused to take a blood test for drugs or controlled dangerous substances. The officer subsequently confiscated Respondent’s driver’s license and served an order of suspension on Respondent. An administrative law judge determined that Respondent violated Md. Code Ann., Transp. (“TR”) 16-205.1 by refusing to take the drug test and ordered that Respondent’s driver’s license be suspended. The circuit court reversed, holding that, once Respondent passed the alcohol concentration test, he was not required to submit to a blood test to avoid suspension. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) under TR 16-205.1(b)(2) and (3), a law enforcement officer with reasonable grounds to suspect that a driver was driving while impaired by drugs may request that the driver take both an alcohol concentration test and a drug test; and (2) the driver is subject to an automatic license suspension for refusing to take the drug test. View "Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Gonce" on Justia Law

A local public school superintendent decided to terminate a school nurse, who was a “noncertificated” employee. The school nurse challenged her termination by way of a grievance process set forth in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the school board and a union. The superintendent denied the grievance, asserting that the termination was an illegal subject of collective bargaining. The union, on behalf of the school nurse, made a demand for arbitration. The school board filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the arbitration. The Maryland State Board of Education (State Board) and the Public School Labor Relations Board (PSLRB) both issued opinions in the matter. The circuit court affirmed the decision of the State Board, which concluded that the binding arbitration provision of the CBA was illegal, and reversed the decision of the PSLRB, which came to the opposite conclusion. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that the PSLRB was the entity with the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the termination of a noncertificated employee is a proper subject of binding arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. View "Bd. of Educ. v. Howard County Educ. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Dustin R., who was born in 1992, has lived in a foster home since 1995. Guardianship was granted to the Department of Social Services. Dustin is medically fragile and has special needs. In 2010, Dustin began to seek the provision of services for himself after age twenty-one. In 2013, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) consented to co-commitment. The parties, however, continued to debate Dustin’s request that services continue after his twenty-first birthday after the guardianship terminates. The juvenile court ordered DHMH to continue to provide services to Dustin after the age of twenty-one. DHMH appealed. The Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that the juvenile court’s order was not a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the juvenile court’s order is appealable as an interlocutory order granting an injunction; (2) the juvenile court had jurisdiction and statutory authority to order DHMH to enter into a plan to obtain “life-sustaining services” for Dustin to continue after he reached age twenty-one; and (3) the juvenile court did not violate the separation of powers in the instant case. View "In re Adoption/Guardianship of Dustin R." on Justia Law

Appellees’ farm was condemned by the Board of Education for the purpose of building a school. On Appellees’ behalf, the Board paid the State agricultural land transfer tax and the County farmland transfer tax. Appellees requested from the County a refund of a portion of the County farmland transfer tax, arguing that the County, in calculating the County farmland transfer tax, was incorrect in concluding that the twenty-five percent State surcharge was not part of the combined transfer tax. The County denied the request for a refund. The Tax Court affirmed, concluding that the State surcharge was to be collected in addition to the State agricultural land transfer tax and the County farmland transfer tax. The circuit court reversed. The Court of Special Appeals certified the case to the Court of Appeals to answer a question of law. The Court of Appeals answered (1) the agricultural land transfer tax, as set forth in Md. Code Ann. Tax-Prop. 13-407(a)(2) and (3), includes the State surcharge imposed under Md. Code Ann. Tax-Prop. 13-303(d), and the State surcharge must be calculated into the tax ceiling on a county’s agricultural land transfer tax; and (2) therefore, Appellees were entitled to a refund in the amount of the overcharge of the County farmland transfer tax. View "Montgomery County v. Phillips" on Justia Law