# Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · January 16, 1975 · 273 Md. 486

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637632

## Case

- **Full name:** Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** January 16, 1975
- **Citations:** 273 Md. 486; 331 A.2d 55; 1975 Md. LEXIS 1369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eldridge
- **Judges:** Murphy, Singley, Smith, Eldridge, O'Donnell
- **Cited by:** 152 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637632

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the “right to an appeal is not a right required by due process of law, nor is it an inherent or inalienable right” and that “[a]n appellate right is entirely statutory in origin and no person or agency may prosecute such an appeal unless the right is conferred by …
- noting that “the doctrine of res judicata has been held not to apply to decisions of administrative agencies,” but concluding that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s decision that the claimant “was an ‘independent contractor’ was conclusive and not subject to collateral a…

## Opinion text

Eldridge, J.,
dissenting:
Maryland Code (1957, 1973 Repl. Vol.), Art. 26A, § 10 (a), provides for judicial review of decisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board only where the Attorney General or the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services believes that the “award is improper.” The statute mandates that “There shall be no other judicial review of any decision made or action taken by the Board . . . .” Such *522 language, in my view, does more than merely preclude judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, Code (1957, 1971 Repl. Vol.), Art. 41, § 255 (a). It prohibits judicial review whether by the Administrative Procedure Act, mandamus, certiorari, or otherwise.
With respect to the basis for the circuit court’s decision, I believe that where no constitutional right or issue of procedural due process is involved, and where no pre-existing personal or property right is present, the Legislature may constitutionally couple the award of a gratuity with a condition precluding judicial review. Therefore, I would reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637632. Public record. Not legal advice.