Lexplug logoLexplug

Department of Human Resources v. Howard

Court of Appeals of Maryland
918 A.2d 441 (2007)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Maryland law, specifically § 1-403(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, only the current, active 'incumbent judges' of the Court of Special Appeals may participate in hearing and deciding cases in banc. Specially assigned judges, including retired judges, are prohibited from participating in such proceedings.


Facts:

  • The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services found Sherri Howard responsible for 'indicated child abuse' concerning her minor son, Alexander.
  • The Department's finding was based on an incident where Howard struck her son in the region of his eye.
  • The Department determined that Howard's action exposed her son to a substantial risk of serious eye injury.
  • Howard maintained that she did not intend to harm her child during the incident.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sherri Howard appealed the Department's finding to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings.
  • The ALJ affirmed the Department's finding of 'indicated child abuse.'
  • Howard sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which acted as the trial court for the administrative appeal.
  • The Circuit Court reversed the ALJ's decision.
  • The Department, as appellant, noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, Maryland's intermediate appellate court.
  • The case was first argued before a three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals.
  • Before the panel issued a decision, the Court of Special Appeals ordered the case to be reheard in banc before all 13 incumbent judges and two specially assigned retired judges.
  • The in banc court, in an eight-to-seven decision, affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment in favor of Howard.
  • The Department petitioned the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted, adding its own question regarding the authority of the in banc court's composition.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Maryland law permit specially assigned retired judges to participate in hearing and deciding cases before the Court of Special Appeals sitting in banc?


Opinions:

Majority - Harrell, J.

No. Maryland statutory law prohibits specially assigned retired judges from participating in cases heard by the Court of Special Appeals in banc. The governing statute, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 1–403(c), explicitly states that ordering and deciding an in banc case requires a majority of the 'incumbent judges of the court.' The court interprets 'incumbent' to mean only those judges actively holding office through the constitutional appointment and retention election process. This interpretation is supported by the plain language of the statute, legislative history which clarifies the term refers to judges 'actually in office,' and the underlying policy of in banc review, which is to allow the permanent members of a court to control its jurisprudence and ensure uniformity of precedent. Retired judges are not 'officeholders' but are 'assigned' temporarily; allowing them to participate would contravene the statute and the purpose of in banc proceedings.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a clear, bright-line rule regarding the composition of Maryland's intermediate appellate court when it sits in banc. By strictly interpreting the term 'incumbent judges,' the Court of Appeals reinforces the principle that in banc review is an internal mechanism for the court's permanent members to maintain doctrinal control and uniformity. The ruling prevents the temporary expansion of the court with specially assigned judges for these critical, precedent-setting hearings. This case serves as a definitive guide on appellate procedure in Maryland, ensuring that the power to shape the court's jurisprudence rests exclusively with its serving, non-retired members.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Department of Human Resources v. Howard (2007) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Department of Human Resources v. Howard