Soley v. State Commission on Human Relations, No. 134
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | Argued before MURPHY; LEVINE |
| Citation | 277 Md. 521,356 A.2d 254 |
| Docket Number | No. 134 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1976 |
| Parties | Joseph L. SOLEY t/a Cardiff Hall East Apartments et al. v. STATE of Maryland COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS. |
Page 521
v.
STATE of Maryland COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS.
[356 A.2d 255]
Page 522
Jeffrey Rockman, Leonard E. Cohen and Frank, Bernstein, Conaway & Goldman, Baltimore (Alan I. Baron, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.Philip J. Tierney, Gen. Counsel, Baltimore (Jacob J. Edelman and Edelman, Levy & Rubinstein, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and O'DONNELL *, JJ.
LEVINE, Judge.
This case is a companion to John J. Banach, et al. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations, Md., 356 A.2d 242 (1976) (No. 133, September Term, 1975, decided April 14, 1976), also decided today. The appeal here arises from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Land, J.) sustaining, without leave to amend, a demurrer to bills of complaint for declaratory relief filed by appellants, Joseph L. Soley and Howard M. Berman, and enforcing a subpoena duces tecum served on each of them by the State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations (the commission) in connection with an investigation which it was then conducting. The subpoenas followed issuance by the commission of an amended complaint which charged appellants with engaging in discriminatory housing practices. We granted certiorari prior to consideration of this appeal by the Court of Special Appeals, and since we think Judge Land ruled correctly in both respects, we shall affirm.
The commission issued the amended complaints in its own name pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.) Art.
Page 523
49B, § 12(b), charging appellants, each of whom is the owner of an apartment house development in Baltimore County, with unlawful discrimination in regard to 'tenant recruitment policies, advertising and rental practices' resulting 'in the virtual exclusion of Black persons from tenancies in the aforesaid apartments because of their race in violation of (Art. 49B, § 22).' At the same time, the commission ordered that 'an investigation of said practices' be undertaken to inquire into 'the facts and circumstances concerning the . . . housing practices of the respondent(s).' An effort to conduct the investigation by interrogatories proved unsuccessful. The [356 A.2d 256] commission then issued subpoenas over the signature of its chairman requesting the production of various documents and records pertaining to appellants' rental procedures. The subpoenas bore no more fruit than did the interrogatories which had preceded them, since appellants maintained that the commission lacked the power to issue subpoenas except in connection with the hearing contemplated by § 14 of Art. 49B.To resolve the impasse, each appellant then filed his bill of complaint reciting the chronology of events leading from the issuance of the initial complaints by the commission to the subpoenas. Appellants prayed that the amended complaints of discriminatory housing practices be declared 'illegal and invalid' for failure to comply with § 12(b) of Art. 49B, that the subpoenas be declared invalid, and that the commission be enjoined from enforcing them. The commission responded with a demurrer and an affirmative claim of its own asking that the court enforce the subpoenas pursuant to § 14(d) of Art. 49B. The two cases were then consolidated. The chancellor, in sustaining the demurrers, held with regard to the relief sought by appellants that the cases were not ripe for declaratory relief, since applicable statutes afforded them 'a special form of remedy.' Further, he rejected appellants' contention that § 14(d) of Art. 49B limited the subpoena power to the hearing stage of commission proceedings.
In this Court, appellants reiterate the arguments advanced below, that the complaints issued by the
Page 524
commission, being couched in conclusory language, did not comply with the requisites of Art. 49B, § 12(b) in regard to particularity, and that the complaints failed to allege the 'reliable information' which the commission must receive before it can issue a complaint in its own name. As we have intimated, however, we agree with the circuit court ruling that these questions need not be reached due to appellants' failure to avail themselves of the special form of remedy provided by statute. Additionally, of course, appellants renew their argument that the subpoenas were beyond the scope of the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland, No. 105, September Term, 2003 (MD 7/30/2004), No. 105, September Term, 2003.
...2002 Repl.Vol., 2003 Supp .), § 3-409(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. In Soley v. State Commission on Human Relations, 277 Md. 521, 526, 356 A.2d 254, 257 (1976), we observed as The rule requiring exhaustion of administrative or statutory remedies is supported by sound re......
-
White v. Prince George's County, No. 67
...385, 401, 380 A.2d 28 (1977); DuBois v. City of College Park, 280 Md. 525, 533, 375 A.2d 1098 (1977); Soley v. St. Comm'n On Human Rel., 277 Md. 521, 526, 356 A.2d 254 (1976); Agrarian, Inc. v. Zoning Inspector, 262 Md. 329, 332, 277 A.2d 591 (1971). Moreover, where the special statutory sc......
-
State Dept. of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark, No. 23
...339, 357, 292 A.2d 680 (1972); Arnold v. Prince George's Co., 270 Md. 285, 297, 311 A.2d 223 (1973); Soley v. St. Comm'n on Human Rel., 277 Md. 521, 527, 356 A.2d 254 12 Appellees do not contest the legality of the sewer moratorium, and we said in Northampton Corp. v. Wash.S.S.Comm'n, 278 M......
-
Harbor Island Marina, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of Calvert County, Md., No. 10
...in any event. (Id. at 404, 380 A.2d at 39 (emphasis supplied).) Although there is language in Soley v. St. Comm'n on Human Rel., 277 Md. 521, 527-28, 356 A.2d 254, 258 (1976) that arguably could be said to indicate otherwise, we here explain that the "constitutional exception" to which we h......
-
Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland, No. 105, September Term, 2003 (MD 7/30/2004), No. 105, September Term, 2003.
...2002 Repl.Vol., 2003 Supp .), § 3-409(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. In Soley v. State Commission on Human Relations, 277 Md. 521, 526, 356 A.2d 254, 257 (1976), we observed as The rule requiring exhaustion of administrative or statutory remedies is supported by sound re......
-
Childers v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., No. 87-1727
...Art. 49B, Sec. 16; it does not, however, create a private right of action in tort. Soley v. Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations, Page 1266 277 Md. 521, 356 A.2d 254 (1976); Dillon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 43 Md.App. 161, 403 A.2d 406 (1979). A private cause of action for wrongful......
-
White v. Prince George's County, No. 67
...385, 401, 380 A.2d 28 (1977); DuBois v. City of College Park, 280 Md. 525, 533, 375 A.2d 1098 (1977); Soley v. St. Comm'n On Human Rel., 277 Md. 521, 526, 356 A.2d 254 (1976); Agrarian, Inc. v. Zoning Inspector, 262 Md. 329, 332, 277 A.2d 591 (1971). Moreover, where the special statutory sc......
-
State Dept. of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark, No. 23
...339, 357, 292 A.2d 680 (1972); Arnold v. Prince George's Co., 270 Md. 285, 297, 311 A.2d 223 (1973); Soley v. St. Comm'n on Human Rel., 277 Md. 521, 527, 356 A.2d 254 12 Appellees do not contest the legality of the sewer moratorium, and we said in Northampton Corp. v. Wash.S.S.Comm'n, 278 M......