Preview:

City of B altimo re Dev elopm ent Co rporat ion v. C arme l Realty Assoc iates, et a l., No. 14, September Term, 2006 Headnote: The City of Baltimore Development Corporation is, in esse nce, a "public b ody" for the purpo ses of M aryland's Open Meet ings A ct and it is also, in e ssence , an "instrum enta lity" of the City of Baltimore for the purposes of Maryland's Public information Act.

Circuit Co urt for Baltim ore City Case # 24-C-04-008608

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 14 September Term, 2006

City of Baltimore Development Corporation v. Carm el Real ty Assoc iates, et al.

Bell, C. J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.

Opinion by Cathell, J.

Filed: November 3, 2006

This appeal arises from a n action filed by Carmel R ealty Associate s, responde nt, 1 alleging that the City of B altimore D evelopm ent Corpo ration (the "B DC"), p etitioner, is subject to the requirements of both the Open Meetings Act2 and M aryland's Pub lic Information Act. 3 At the trial level, both parties moved for summary judgment. After hearing arguments on March 14, 20 05, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City issued an Order denying Carmel Realty's motion and granting the BDC's motion. In an unreported opinion, filed January 24, 2006, the Court of Special A ppeals reversed the ruling of the trial court and found that the BD C is subjec t to the require ments of both the Open Meetings Act and the requireme nts of Maryland's Public Information Act. The City of Baltimore Development Corporation filed a petition for a writ o f certiorari on March 6, 2006, an d Carme l Reality filed a cross-petition for a writ of certiorari on March 18, 2006 . This Cou rt granted bo th petitions on M ay 10, 20 06. City of Baltimore Development Corporation v. Carmel Realty Associates , et al. , 392 Md. 724 , 898 A.2d 100 4 (2006). The following questions are presented for review:4

There are nine respondents. Of those nine, seven own property within the affected area and two lease property within the affected area. We will refer to them collectively as "Carmel Reality" or resp ondent. When it is necessary to distinguish the individual respondents, the context will so indicate.
2

1

Maryland Code (1984, 2004 Repl. Vol.),

Download Baltimore Development v. Carmel Realty.pdf

Maryland Law