*1 аnd remand City, case to that court for a determination compensation just paid taking.
Order Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore dated City October 29, 1976, vacated ease remanded to that court for further proceedings determine compensation paid amount of to be Baltimore City the land taken. to be paid by the appellees.
Costs BISHOP, JOHN J. JR. et al. v. GOVERNOR
OF MARYLAND Term, September [No. 1977.] Decided December *2 J., argued C. and
The cause before Smith, Murphy, Eldridge and JJ. Orth, Digges, Levine, Jr., Gregory whom was H. Skidmore Bishop, John J. with brief, appellants. on the General, Eastwick, E Assistаnt with whom Attorney
Carl General, Burch, and A. Attorney George B. Francis were General, brief, appellee. on Nilson, Attorney Deputy J., opinion delivered the of C. Court. Smith, Murphy, J., opinion dissenting page at dissents and filed infra. III, Maryland, of Article The Constitution submit an annual Maryland mandatеs that the Governor containing Assembly Bill to the Budget and General total of and ... proposed appropriations “the of all total pay appropriations, available to all estimated revenues shall proposed appropriations for total figure and the The section figure for estimated total revenues.” exceed enacted, Bill, as shall also be Budget requires balanced, i.e., estimated revenues figure that “the total for total exceed the always equal figure shall appropriations.” budget and 21,1976, January the Governor submitted
On the amount of Assembly $3.6 Budget Bill to the General Included ending June 1977. year for the fiscal billion revenues of million which would $74 it were estimated within during legislative the 1976 session accrue to the State statutes lottery-related enacted two Assembly General were estimated by Also included proposed the Governor. become available million which would $21 revenues extended the of the United States if the State its Sharing program beyond scheduled Federal Revenue 31, 1976. None of the date of December exрiration contingent in the Bill were appropriations requested Budget state or passage proposed revenue-producing 23,1976, opinion February dated legislation. By federal found no constitutional Attorney General infirmity in inclusion these estimated finally passed by The Bill was the General budget.1 Budget proposed on 1976. The state Assembly April million produce $74 the estimated revenues of designed law signed into Assembly was enacted the General 4,May the Governor certain taxpayers appellants, July
On sought declaratory Assembly, mеmbers General sources contingent revenue inclusion the that the judgment enacted, Bill, finally and as Budget submitted in the *3 § (5a) of of 52 requirements budget violated the “balanced” it was Specifically, Constitution. Article III were question revenues alleged that the estimated legislativе they require in that “contingent figures revenue becoming to their precedent as condition approval [within § available revenues (5a)] of ‘estimated contemplation 52 the budget”; and that in the contained pay appropriations’ to the not contingеnt revenues and figures are these revenue “Since to pay appropriations’ revenues available ‘estimated not was balanced.” Budget by the Governor submitted 21, 1977, the Circuit January by The on case was heard J.) (Beardmore, on for Anne Arundel County order filed on summаry judgment. By an cross-motions for as long as the court concluded that February total did not exceed the proposed appropriations total revenues, contingent upon the including estimated § (5a) legislation, 52 was enactment federal state enterеd; certiorari granted violated. An we appeal timely Appeals. Special to decision in the case the Court by (1974) Proceedings Courts and Judicial See Maryland Code § Article, 12-201. (1976). Op. Att’y
1. 61 43 Gen.
524 § appellants
The it is argue purpose to avoid budget deficits and that consequently estimаted revenues must at the actually they be “available” time are budget included in the by They Governor. maintain that provision the constitutional cannot interpreted permit to to political Governor use his intuition or wisdom to budget, and to balance the afford the “аvailable,” word (5a), used subjective, than objective rather denotation, subjects the budget system executive very abuse that it was Appellants established avoid. limit their appeal constitutional attack on to the estimated revenues budget included in the contingent upon which were passage legislation. federal The extending Federal Revenue Sharing 1976, 31, program beyond December relied in submitting figure Governor his estimated revenue million was by $21 enacted of the United. approved States and 13,1976. the President on October Seе 1976, State Local Fiscal Assistance Amendments of Pub. 94-488, No. Hence, L. 90 Stat. 2341. the revenues estimated Governor, million, totaling both state federal $95 which he included in his were fact realized well before the Anne Circuit Court for Arundel entered its County declaratory decree. is, сourse,
It
well established that the existence of a
justiciable controversy
prerequisite
is a
to the maintenance
Schultz,
of declaratory judgment action. Harford County v.
(1977);
Md.
Bd. of
George’s
Pr.
Co. v.
Trustees,
(1973).
525 terminating purpose a useful not serve controversy. parties at the time controversy existed
No live
betweеn
for Anne
heard or decided
the Circuit Court
the case was
upon which
federal and state
County; the
Arundel
enacted,
no
depended
had been
the estimated
under
52
constitutionality
as
of the
real issue
80,
longer
any
year ending
for the fiscal
June
was
Moreover,
has now
year-budget
the 1977 fiscal
involved.
can
In these
to it no actual
exist.
expired
controversy
indeed,
made;
circumstances, no
declaration could be
useful
of no effect
futility,
gesture
be an act of
a useless
it would
whatsoever,
Md.
Grow.
appeal.
to consider
See
Tobacco
(1972).
Auth.,
20,
A. 2d 578
Md. Tob.
Md.
v.
justiciable
can,
course,
an
in a
give
opinion
We
moot,
action,
though
where
even
declaratory judgment
is
exist, such as where there
extraordinary circumstances
affecting future
urgently
needed determination
an
is
рublic
concern
conduct in which
governmental
George’s
Reyes v. Prince
See
imperative and manifest.
(1977).
A. 2d 12
That case
County, 281
Md.
public
con
and manifest
involved matter
us,
where,
actual
case was before
an
at the time the
cern
exist,
urgent
need for
and there
did
governmental
bond
legality
determination of the
judicial
issue;
adjudicated
effectively
case
our decision
of the
chronology
Unlike
litigation.
Reyes,
merits
could do could
nothing
indicates that
that we
present case
beyond
already
that which has
occurred.
remedy
undo or
any
to make a decision in this
which will bind
power
in the case
to it. And while the issue raised
parties
it
importance, may
undeniably
one of considerable
does,
recur,
difficulty
it
there
no
should be
never
but
Lloyd v.
passed upon
Compare
as a live issuе.
having
(1954).
Elections,
Appeal dismissed; appellants to pay costs.
Smith, J, dissenting:
I dissent I very- because believe should decide the important matter rаised in this an appeal, issue which regard as vital to the future fiscal well-being of this State. However, I agree that
this case is moot because the concerns budget the fiscal year beginning July which fiscal has year now ended.
I hope declaratory judgment actiоn will be instituted forthwith any Maryland again Governor sends a to the Assembly subject General to attack on a basis similar to the issue raised here. With the research done in this and the cooperation parties, possible of the a final appellate decision could be rendered deadline adoption of a budget. The courts dealing would then be awith live really controversy. The enact finally did which had effect of supplying money upon counted in the budget here under attack. That come, however, enactment did not until sоme months after beginning year fiscal and a good eight months after budget. submission action an Prompt to secure adjudication present temptation not of the matter question decide the of whether revenues were “available” within the meaning Maryland upon Constitution basis of that ultimately place took rather than basis the factual situation at existing the time of the submission of the budget. I am not to be understood this comment as criticizing plaintiffs here since there was indication argument at the before us that their reason for pushing for hеaring an earlier towas accommodate what was conceived them Attorney to be the General best interest of the State.
There have been a number of instances within the last years in which Governors order achieve balanced budget have resоrted some ingenious *6 bookkeeping measures such as a shift in the calculated time receipt of certain revenues. I Accordingly, it believe possible that the problem represented in this case may well recur. For that reason regard this case one public of such importance that we should consider the matter for the purpose of providing guidance for future conduct in similar circumstances.
Reyes
George’s County, 281 Md.
v. Prince
(1977),
days
to
argument
but four
decided
in
In
Judge Digges
this case.
it
referred
the Court to
Lancastеr,
in
statement
Hammond v.
471-72,
deciding
“We
the Court
to which
are those
described
just
have
advisory
that
it indicаted
when
referred
Hammond
without
rendered
be
opinions
us that
apparent
mandate.
constitutional
prevent
applicable
are not
limitations
those
requisite
moot case where
in a
decision
loath
We are
exist....
circumstances
extraordinary
of this
judgment
that, simply because
conclude
parties
rights
longer
no
affect
can
Court
us for
before
brought
dispute
who have
judicial
necessarily beyond
is
it
adjudication,
importance
regard
function without
recurrence, and other
issues,
the likelihood
is
Particularly where
factors.
similar
opposing
and the
to this
appealed
when
live
the action
so
presented,
vigorously
are
positions
judicial
through
resolution
clearly suitable
constitutional
clear.
in the absence
process,
implied,
reasonably
express or
prohibition, either
be judicially
never
infer that
decline to
however,
we will
emphasize,
We
resolved.
in rare instances
only
authority
this
exercise
demonstrate the most
compelling
circumstances.”
-
(Footnotes omitted.)
In Reyes we laid down certain рrocedures to be followed when an “action involves the of a validity statute or governmental regulation having statute, force of or an . urgently needed determination affecting future governmental conduct, and in which the public’s concern is and manifest” in ordеr that such case “not hereafter necessarily be dismissed as aby collusive court of footnote, this State....” By after the reference to the public’s concern as “both imperative manifest,” the Court said in Reyes:
“In this regard it may helpful to recall the *7 language of the Court in Lloyd v. Supervisors of Elections,
where we noted circumstances under which the decision of issues moot as to the parties might be appropriate: better considered and reasoned cases
[T]he take the view that only where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is manifest, will there be justified departure general from the rule practice deciding of not academic questions. hold They if the public interest clearly will hurt if the question is not decided, if immediately the matter involved likely frequently, rеcur and'its recurrence will involve a relationship government citizens, between and its or a duty government, and upon any recurrence, the same difficulty which prevented the appeal being at hand from again heard in time is likely prevent decision, then the may .find justification for deciding the raised issues moot, become has question which these factors concur with all particularly 18. weight.” sufficient Id. at 300 n. squarely case fits what we believe this within because said for Judge and what Hammond Reyes
said its upon I would consider this predecessors Lloyd that merits. hope, lest revenue estimates based
I am concerned difference) (there is a rather than actual belief position in as a financial place precarious the State ultimately Harrington appointed Emerson C. as was when Governor ago. years more than 60 the Goodnow Commission ELECTRIC AVILES et ux. v. ESHELMAN JOSEPH CORPORATION al. et Term, 33, September 1977.] [No. December
Decided