# Najafi v. Motor Vehicle Administration

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · January 31, 2011 · 418 Md. 164

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770129

## Case

- **Full name:** Babak NAJAFI v. MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** January 31, 2011
- **Citations:** 418 Md. 164; 12 A.3d 1255; 2011 Md. LEXIS 20
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harrell
- **Judges:** Bell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Murphy, Adkins, Barbera
- **Cited by:** 17 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/9770129

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “an administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts. Furthermore, the expertise of the agency in its own field should be respected.”
- discussing the substantial evidence test

## Opinion text

HARRELL, J.,
concurring.
The Majority opinion could, and should, have been quite a bit shorter, by its own admission. Twenty-three pages into the opinion there appears a paragraph beginning with this sentence: “Ultimately, however, our discussion in the instant case as to the effect, in the administrative context, of the applicability of a right to counsel prior to making a test election is really dicta, because Najafi clearly was given an opportunity to contact counsel.” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, in the last paragraph of the Majority opinion (op. at 188, 12 A.3d at 1270), it is stated that “we avoid having to determine whether or not a police officer must afford the right to counsel to a detained driver in the administrative license suspension hearing.... ” I construe these statements as conceding that: (1) the considerable discussion devoted to Petitioner’s first question on certiorari is unnecessary to decide this case; and, (2) the first question is a moot one, on this record. I join the judgment and the remaining analysis of the Majority opinion supporting affirmance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770129. Public record. Not legal advice.