Jordan Towing6/12/2002
e exceptions, an administrative agency is required to follow its own procedures or regulations. See, e.g., United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 751 n.14, 99 S. Ct. 1465, 1471 n.14, 59 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1979) (while a violation of agency regulations did not raise constitutional questions under the circumstances, ` t does not necessarily follow, however, as a matter of either logic or law, that the agency had no duty to obey them'); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235, 94 S. Ct. 1055, 1074, 39 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1974) (`Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures. This is so even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required'); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 372, 77 S. Ct. 1152, 1157, 1 L. Ed 2d 1403 (1957) (` egulations validly prescribed by a government administrator are binding upon him as well as the citizen, and . . . this principle holds even when the administrative action under review is discretionary in nature'). But, cf. American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532, 538-539, 90 S. Ct. 1288, 1292, 25 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1970).
"The Court of Special Appeals has recognized or applied the Accardi doctrine in numerous opinions. See, e.g., Anastasi v. Montgomery County, 123 Md. App. 472, 491, 719 A.2d 980, 989-990 (1998); G&M;Ross v. License Commissioner, 111 Md. App. 540, 543, 682 A.2d 1190 (1996); Board of School Commissioners v. James, 96 Md. App. 401, 421-422, 265 A.2d 361, cert. denied, 332 Md. 382, 631 A.2d 452 (1993); Board of Education of Baltimore Co[unty] v. Ballard, 67 Md. App. 235, 239-243, 507 A.2d 192 (1986); Board of Education v. Barbano, 45 Md. App. 27, 41-42, 411 A.2d 124, 131-132 (1980); Hopkins v. Maryland Inmate Grievance Commission, 40 Md. App. 329, 335- 338, 391 A.2d 1213, 1216-1217 (1978). The Court of Special Appeals has taken the position that, in situations where the Accardi doctrine is applicable, it does not matter whether one was prejudiced by the failure of the agency to follow its procedures or regulations. See, e.g., Board of Education of Baltimore Co[unty] v. Ballard, supra, 67 Md. App. at 239 n.2, 507 A.2d at 194 n.2.
"Although this Court has not previously discussed the Accardi doctrine as such, or even cited Accardi v. Shaughnessy, supra, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S. Ct. 499, 98 L. Ed. 681, it is clear that, at least to some extent, a similar doctrine is reflected in Maryland administrative law. Thus, the judicial review section of the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act provides that a reviewing court may `reverse or modify the [administrative] decision if any substantial right of the petitioner may have been prejudiced because a finding, conclusion, or decision . . . (iii) results from an unlawful procedure (iv) is affected by any other error of law . . . .' Code (1984, 1999 Repl. Vol.), ยง 10-222(h) (iii) and (iv) of the State Government Article.
"Moreover, numerous opinions of this Court have involved the review of agency action to determine if the agency complied with its regulations and required procedures. See, e.g., Board of Physicians v. Levitsky, 353 Md. 188, 206-207, 725 A.2d 1027 (1999) (An agency's violations of procedures which do not `compromise the accused's opportunity for a full and fair hearing on the charge,' or which were not raised during the administrative proceedings, furnish no basis to invalidate the agency's decision); Dept. of Corrections v. Howard, 339 Md. 357, 369-370, 663 A.2d 74 (1995) (The failure of an agency to complete an investigation within the time set forth in a regulation did `not reflect any prejudice . . . that was caused by the delay,' and therefore the administrative decision was affirmed); Wa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|