133 A.3d 1112
Md.2016Background
- Maryland statute (PU §12-101 et seq.) creates a one-call system (“Miss Utility”) requiring advance notice before most excavations to prevent damage to underground facilities.
- The Maryland Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Authority (the Authority) was created to enforce the statute: hold hearings, issue subpoenas, assess civil penalties, require training, and administer a special education fund.
- Reliable Contracting excavated without timely notice and damaged a utility; the Authority assessed $2,000 and $1,000 penalties (the latter waivable for completing training).
- Reliable challenged the enabling statute as unconstitutional, arguing: (1) it improperly vests judicial power in a non-judicial body (separation of powers); and (2) it lacks adequate statutory guidance for assessing penalties.
- Lower courts (circuit court and Court of Special Appeals) upheld the Authority; the intermediate court held SG §10-1001 supplies penalty-assessment criteria. The Court of Appeals granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Authority’s power to adjudicate violations and assess penalties violates separation of powers by vesting judicial power in a non-judicial body | Reliable: The Authority’s contested-case adjudications and penalties are judicial in nature and cannot be delegated to an executive agency | Authority/State: The Authority exercises quasi-judicial powers subject to judicial review and was validly created as an executive-branch agency | The Authority’s adjudicatory powers are quasi-judicial, properly delegated, and constitutional because decisions are subject to judicial review (no impermissible vesting of judicial power) |
| Whether the enabling statute provides adequate guidance for assessing civil monetary penalties (Investors Funding concern) | Reliable: The statute lacks standards for setting penalty amounts, leaving arbitrary discretion | Authority: The statute limits when penalties may be imposed; the Authority questioned whether SG §10-1001 applies to it | SG §10-1001 applies to the Authority (it is an executive-branch unit) and supplies the required criteria (severity, good faith, prior history); remand for the Authority to apply those criteria and reassess penalties |
| Whether the Authority qualifies as a State agency for application of SG §10-1001 | Reliable: SG §10-1001 should not apply if the Authority is not a State agency | Authority: Argued it may not be a State agency given atypical funding and appointment/removal features | The Court examines the entire relationship to the State; finds the Authority is an executive-branch agency for purposes of SG §10-1001 (public purpose, State personnel designation, appointment/removal by Governor, judicial review, immunities) |
| Remedy: What should the court do about the penalties imposed absent explicit application of SG §10-1001 | Reliable: Vacate penalties or remand for proper guided assessment | Authority: Maintain decision as reasonable | Court vacated appellate judgment and remanded for the Authority to reassess penalties consistent with SG §10-1001 (case remanded through intermediate court to circuit court to Authority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dal Maso v. Board of County Commissioners, 182 Md. 200, 34 A.2d 464 (administrative bodies cannot be vested with judicial authority reserved to courts)
- Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md. 372, 45 A.2d 73 (administrative agencies may exercise quasi-judicial power subject to review)
- County Council for Montgomery County v. Investors Funding Corp., 270 Md. 403, 312 A.2d 225 (agency with penalty authority needs guidelines for penalty amounts; availability of judicial review is critical)
- Maryland Aggregates Ass’n v. State, 337 Md. 658, 655 A.2d 886 (discussing limits on agency adjudicatory power and judicial review)
- A.S. Abell Pub. Co. v. Mezzanote, 297 Md. 26, 464 A.2d 1068 (factors for determining when an entity is a State agency)
- Moberly v. Herboldsheimer, 276 Md. 211, 345 A.2d 855 (public purpose, appointments, and statutory attributes can make an entity a public agency)