Lonaconing v. Dept. of Environment

24 Citing cases

  1. Tyler v. College Park

    415 Md. 475 (Md. 2010)   Cited 94 times
    Recognizing that Maryland courts "interpret Article 24 in pari materia with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

    In addition, we observed that legislative bodies are not required by equal protection to attack all aspects of a problem at the same time; rather, the legislative body "may select one phase of a problem and apply a remedy there, neglecting for the moment other phases of the problem." Bowie Inn, 274 Md. at 241, 335 A.2d at 686; see also Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dep't of Env't, 410 Md. 326, 346, 978 A.2d 702, 713 (2009). Neither party contends that the Ordinance implicates a suspect classification or a fundamental right.

  2. Baddock v. Balt. Cnty.

    239 Md. App. 467 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    " Frey v. Comptroller of Treasury , 422 Md. 111, 177, 29 A.3d 475 (2011) (quoting Neifert v. Dep't of Env't , 395 Md. 486, 506, 910 A.2d 1100 (2006) ). Legislative bodies are permitted to make commercial classifications that distinguish between entities; provided a "classification is not purely arbitrary and has a rational basis, the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause." Frey , 422 Md. at 163, 29 A.3d 475 (quoting Governor of Md. v. Exxon Corp. , 279 Md. 410, 439, 370 A.2d 1102(1977) ); seeLonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dep't of Env't , 410 Md. 326, 343, 978 A.2d 702 (2009) (A classification is presumptively constitutional and will not be voided "if there are any considerations relating to the public welfare by which it can be supported[.]") (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

  3. State v. Phillips

    210 Md. App. 239 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that portions of a Baltimore City ordinance regarding gun registration could be severed if found to be invalid

    Md. Decl. RightsS art. 24. Although the Maryland Declaration of Rights does not contain an express equal protection provision, the Court of Appeals has recognized that principles of equal protection are embodied in the due process requirement of Article 24. Tyler v. City of College Park, 415 Md. 475, 499, 3 A.3d 421 (2010). See also Lonaconing Trap Club Inc. v. Md. Dep't of the Env't, 410 Md. 326, 342 n. 16, 978 A.2d 702 (2009); Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 272 n. 33, 932 A.2d 571 (2007).The State disagrees. It asserts that appellee's argument “relies on classifications concerning jurisdiction of residence and jurisdiction of conviction,” and “[b]ecause these classifications do not involve a suspect class like race or gender, and do not infringe on any fundamental rights,” the proper standard of review is rational basis.

  4. Willis v. Montgomery County

    415 Md. 523 (Md. 2010)   Cited 27 times
    Dismissing judicial review action of agency's refusal to refer a worker's compensation case to fraud division; the County was later able to seek compensation for the alleged fraud through another agency proceeding, from which appeal would lie

    "We neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, and we do not construe a statute with `forced or subtle interpretations' that limit or extend its application." Id. at 275, 987 A.2d at 29 (quoting Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Dep't of the Env't, 410 Md. 326, 339, 978 A.2d 702, 709 (2009)). Nor do we construe the language of the statute in a vacuum; rather, we examine the language "within the context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs, considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the Legislature in enacting the statute."

  5. Briggs v. State

    413 Md. 265 (Md. 2010)   Cited 16 times

    "`The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.'" Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dept. of the Env't, 410 Md. 326, 338, 978 A.2d 702, 709 (2009) (quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Zimmer-Rubert, 409 Md. 200, 21 [4], 973 A.2d 233, 241 (2009)). "`Statutory construction begins with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language.'"

  6. Rosemann v. Salsbury Clements

    412 Md. 308 (Md. 2010)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that a personal injury settlement was exempt from attachment — even for the purpose of enforcing a judgment for unpaid child support

    "`The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.'" Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dept. of the Env't, 410 Md. 326, 338, 978 A.2d 702, 709 (2009) (quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Zimmer-Rubert, 409 Md. 200, 212, 973 A.2d 233, 241 (2009)). "`Statutory construction begins with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language.'"

  7. Zaragoza v. State

    No. 0844-2019 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 15, 2021)

    A statutory classification analyzed under the rational basis test, the most deferential standard of constitutional review, will "pass constitutional muster so long as it is 'rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.'" Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Maryland Dep't of Env't, 410 Md. 326, 341 (2009) (quoting Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 274 (2007)). This Court "'will not overturn' the [legislative] classification 'unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [this Court] can only conclude that the [governmental] actions were irrational.'"

  8. State v. Bey

    452 Md. 255 (Md. 2017)   Cited 97 times

    We cannot, however, add that language to the statute by judicial fiat. SeeLonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Maryland Dep't of Env't , 410 Md. 326, 339, 978 A.2d 702, 709 (2009) (stating that "[we] neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain language of the statute ...").

  9. Rodriguez v. Brand W. Dairy

    378 P.3d 13 (N.M. 2016)   Cited 25 times
    Concluding that "there [was] no unique characteristic that distinguishes injured farm and ranch laborers from other employees of agricultural employers"

    The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than the invidious discrimination.” (internal citations omitted)); Ry. Express Agency v. New York , 336 U.S. 106, 110, 69 S.Ct. 463, 93 L.Ed. 533 (1949) ( “It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.”); see also, e.g. , Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC , 2016 OK 20, ¶ 32, 2016 WL 805519, as corrected (Mar. 4, 2016) (“A mere overinclusiveness or underinclusiveness in statutory classification will not necessarily show a failure to satisfy a rational-basis review.”); Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dep't of Env't , 410 Md. 326, 978 A.2d 702, 713 (2009) (“Underinclusiveness does not create an equal protection violation under the rational basis test.”). {95} To be sure, a tailoring analysis can be useful to discern whether the Legislature created a discriminatory classification with animus toward a particular, discrete group and disguised that animus with a socioeconomic rationale.

  10. Walker v. Dept. of Housing

    422 Md. 80 (Md. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that the APA's contested case procedures applied to termination of Section 8 benefits, when the "parties [were] in agreement that the [Department of Housing and Community Development] is a State agency to which the APA applies"

    Under the rules of construction, “we neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain language of the statute; nor [do we] construe the statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application.” Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dept. of the Env't, 410 Md. 326, 339, 978 A.2d 702, 709 (2009) (internal quotation and citation marks omitted). We must “ ‘read a statute as a whole to ensure that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.’ ”