113 Md. App. 14 - Ahalt v. Montgomery County’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 146 Md. App. 526 - Young v. Anne Arundel County (2002), 120 Md. App. 667 - Rouse-Fairwood Limited Partnership v. Supervisor of Assessments of Prince George's County (1998)
44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight · United Parcel Service, Inc. v. People's Counsel · Baltimore Lutheran High School Ass'n v. Employment Security Administration · Montgomery County v. Buckman · United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, Local 2610 v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our role in reviewing an administrative decision is “precisely the same as that of the circuit court.” Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Shrieves, 100 Md.App. 283, 303-04 , 641 A.2d 899 [ ] (1994); see Moseman v. County Council, 99 Md.App. 258, 262 , 636 A.2d 499 ,[] cert. denied, 335 Md. 229 , 643 A.2d 383 (1994). Like the circuit court, we must review the administrative decision itself. Public Serv. Comm’n v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 273 Md. 357, 362 , 329 A.2d 691 [] (1974); see Dep’t of Econ. & Employment Dev. v. Hager, 96 Md.App. 362 , 625 A.2d 342 [] (1993). “Judicial review of administrative agency action is narrow.” United Parcel Serv. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, 336 Md. 569, 576 , 650 A.2d 226 [](1994). In reviewing the Board’s decision, this Court must not engage in judicial fact finding. Anderson v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 330 Md. 187, 212 , 623 A.2d 198 [] (1993); Board of County Comm’rs v. Holbrook, 314 Md. 210, 218 , 550 A.2d 664 [] (1988) . Nor may we supply factual findings that were not made by the Board. Ocean Hideaway Condo. Ass’n v. Boardwalk Plaza Venture, 68 Md.App. 650 , 515 A.2d 485 [] (1986). Moreover, this Court may not uphold the agency’s decision “unless it is sustainable on the agency’s findings and for the reasons stated by the agency.” United Parcel Serv., 336 Md. at 577 , 650 A.2d 226 (quoting United Steelworkers v. Beth. Steel, 298 Md. 665 , 472 A.2d 62 [] (1984)); see Harford County v. Preston, 322 Md. 493, 505 , 588 A.2d 772 ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘A court’s role in reviewing an administrative agency adjudicatory decision is narrow; it is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law. “ ‘In applying the substantial evidence test, a reviewing court decides whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached. A reviewing court should defer to the agency’s fact-finding and drawing of inferences if they are supported by the record. A reviewing court must review the agency’s decision in the light most favorable to it; ... the agency’s decision is prima facie correct and presumed valid, and ... it is the agency’s province to resolve conflicting evidence and to draw inferences from that evidence. “ ‘Despite some unfortunate language that has crept into a few of our opinions, a court’s task on review is not to substitute its judgment for the expertise of those persons who constitute the administrative agency. Even with regard to some legal issues, a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency. Thus, an administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts. Furthermore, the expertise of the agency in its own field should be respected.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“arbitrary, illegal or capricious. In making a determination of whether the Board of Appeals’ decision is arbitrary, illegal or capricious, the reviewing court must decide whether the question before the agency was fairly debatable. An issue is fairly debatable if reasonable persons could have reached a different conclusion on the evidence and, if so, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. The fairly debatable test is analogous to the clearly erroneous standard under Rule 8-131(c) and a decision is fairly debatable if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole. In contrast to findings of fact, however, an agency’s interpretation of law is not entitled to deference. When the question before the agency involves interpretation of an ordinance or statute, our review is more expansive. We are not bound by the agency’s interpretation. Thus, “a reviewing court is under no constraints in reversing an administrative decision which is premised solely upon an erroneous conclusion of law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.