Meehan v. Macy

257 Md. 58
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMay 12, 1969
DocketNo. 20,812
StatusPublished

This text of 257 Md. 58 (Meehan v. Macy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Meehan v. Macy, 257 Md. 58 (Md. 1969).

Opinions

Per Curiam

: On April 18,1968, a division of this court concluded that the agency which held the hearing on appellant’s proposed discharge was warranted in finding that Charge 1 (conduct unbecoming a police officer) was sustained, but that the record did not contain adequate support for discharge on Charge 2 (failure to obey instructions) or Charge 3 (failure to obtain clearance for publication).1 The division remanded to the District Court so as to permit agency reconsideration, in view of this court’s ruling, of the sanction to be imposed on appellant.

On August 23, 1968, after the Supreme Court decided Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S., 563 (1968), the same division of this court altered its order of re[59]*59mand so as to provide for reconsideration of appellant’s case, on the merits, in light of the Pickering decision, and provision was specifically made for opportunity on remand for the introduction of further evidence.

Appellant had filed a petition for rehearing en banc to request reconsideration of the division’s opinion in the light of Pickering. This court’s granting rehearing en banc, and its order, had the effect of vacating the opinions and orders of the division. After hearing argument en banc, this court is of the view that the result reached in the division’s orders was an appropriate disposition; it accordingly reinstates those orders to the extent that: (1) Charges 2 and 3 are dismissed; (2) Charge 1 is to be reconsidered in light of Pickering; and (3) if Charge 1, so reconsidered, is still found to be validly charged and proved, the penalty assessed is to be reconsidered in view of Charges 2 and 3 being dismissed.

Since proceedings on remand may result in additional evidence of record, and a different order entered by the executive authority, we see no occasion for a decision on the present record as to the implications of Pickering for Meehan.

The Commission may consider this an appropriate time to reconsider its precedents in view of Pickering and to establish general guidelines insofar as that may be feasible.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brown v. Mississippi
297 U.S. 278 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Chambers v. Florida
309 U.S. 227 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Adler v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
342 U.S. 485 (Supreme Court, 1952)
Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City
350 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court, 1956)
Haynes v. Washington
373 U.S. 503 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Garrity v. New Jersey
385 U.S. 493 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Navios Corporation v. the Ulysses II
260 F.2d 959 (Fourth Circuit, 1958)
Leslie F. Huntt v. Government of the Virgin Islands
339 F.2d 309 (Third Circuit, 1964)
Crable v. GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY
90 N.W.2d 805 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1958)
Hughes v. Maryland Committee for Fair Representation
217 A.2d 273 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1966)
Truitt v. Board of Public Works
221 A.2d 370 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1966)
Hammond v. Lancaster
71 A.2d 474 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1950)
State v. Barger
220 A.2d 304 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1966)
Miller v. State
247 A.2d 530 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1968)
Navios Corporation v. the Ulysses II
161 F. Supp. 932 (D. Maryland, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 Md. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meehan-v-macy-md-1969.