No. 18-856

Serge Antonin v. Baltimore Police Department

Lower Court: Maryland
Docketed: 2019-01-04
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: accardi-v-shaughnessy administrative-hearing administrative-law constitutional-law due-process evidence law-enforcement police-misconduct prejudice procedural-rights state-agency state-agency-regulations
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) is constitutional law binding upon the State of Maryland?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether United States ex rel. Accardi uv. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) is constitutional law binding upon the State of Maryland? Where a state agency does not follow its own regulation, what quantity and quality of evidence is sufficient to prove prejudice under United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) to warrant vacating the administrative action?

Docket Entries

2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-11
Waiver of right of respondent Baltimore Police Department to respond filed.
Main Document
2018-12-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2019)
PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service

Attorneys

Baltimore Police Department
Suzanne Sangree — City of Baltimore, Department of Law, Respondent
Suzanne Sangree — City of Baltimore, Department of Law, Respondent
Serge Antonin
Clarke Francis Ahlers — Clarke F. Ahlers, PC, Petitioner
Clarke Francis Ahlers — Clarke F. Ahlers, PC, Petitioner