Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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. View "County Council v. Billings, et al." on Justia Law

After lobbying for legislation authorizing collective bargaining for its members, the Maryland Transportation Authority Police Lodge #34 of the Fraternal Order of Police, Inc. (FOP) struck a written memorandum agreement with the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA), in which the MTA agreed to fund a multi-million take-home vehicle (THV) program provided the bills were withdrawn and no collective bargaining legislation covering the MTA was passed that session. When a new governor took office, he declined to continue funding for the THV program. The FOP sued on theories of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The circuit court granted MTA's motion to dismiss, finding that the agreement was unenforceable and violated the state's collective bargaining laws. The court of special appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case with instructions to affirm the judgment of the circuit court, holding that because the legislature did not expressly authorize the MTA and its employees to bargain collectively at the time the agreement was executed, the agreement was unenforceable. View "Maryland Transp. Auth. v Maryland Transp. Auth. Police Lodge #34" on Justia Law

Petitioner James Thomas, a retired Maryland State Police officer, applied for special disability retirement benefits after being found guilty of neglect of duty, submitting inaccurate reports, and submitting false reports and being sanctioned with suspension and demotion. Petitioner's argument that he was entitled to the benefits was rejected by the Board of Trustees of the State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland (the Board). After that administrative decision was affirmed upon judicial review by the circuit court and court of special appeals, petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court of Appeals concluded that because petitioner's incapacity arose out of his "willful negligence," he was not entitled to special disability benefits provided by Md. Code Ann., State Pers. & Pens. 29-111(b)(1). Affirmed. View "Thomas v. State Ret. & Pension Sys. of Md." on Justia Law

At issue on review by the Supreme Court is whether people aggrieved by the Board of County Commissioners of Kent County can appeal the Commissioners' decision to an appellate court. The Commissioners approved a request that effectively amended the County's local Critical Area Plan under the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Protection Program. Petitioner Jerry Smith and several Kent County Residents challenged the Court of Special Appeals's decision to dismiss their challenge to the Commissioners' ruling that granted increased development of a particular parcel of property within the County. A procedural problem arose from a proclamation that said the County's decision is not effective until it's approved by the State Critical Area Commission. While consideration of the initial development request was pending before the Critical Area Commission, Petitioners sought judicial review in the circuit court of the County Commissioners' initial approval of the development. The court affirmed the County's approval for the development; Petitioners filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the matter as premature. On review of the enabling statutes creating the Critical Area Protection program and the records of proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the County's approval of the development was not a final action, "considering that the [Critical Area] Commission's required decision may modify, reject, delay or even preclude the local approval from becoming effective. As a non-final order ⦠no immediate right existed to have judicial review take place." The Court affirmed the lower court's decision in dismissing Petitioner's case.