stating that application of the incorrect legal standard renders a decision arbitrary and capricious
How later courts described this case
- stating that application of the incorrect legal standard renders a decision arbitrary and capricious
- noting that the Board should have issued specific findings of fact when it issued its opinion, and its failure to do so constituted legal error
- “the record contains little or no empirical data to support the Board’s conclusions or to refute the studies and reports of petitioner’s experts. The Board’s decision is thus arbitrary and capricious.”
- “We have recently held, in White, that these criteria must be applied in total and generally, and that no individual factor is to be determinative”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Bereano v. State Ethics Commission
377 Md. 382, 437 (2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Bereano v. State Ethics Comm’n, 403 Md. 716, 756
The opinion
BATTAGLIA Judge,
dissenting.
I do not join either the Court’s opinion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration, nor Judge Wilner’s dissent from the denial. I would grant the Motion for Reconsideration and set the case in for a hearing.