Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 74 September Term, 2002 _________________________________________

HOLIDAY UNIVERSAL, INC., et al.

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al.

__________________________________________

Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ. __________________________________________

Opinion by Eldridge, J. _________________________________________

Filed: October 9, 2003

In this action, the appellants challenge an ordinance enacted by the Montgom ery County Counc il, which enables Montgom ery County to regulate a future service contract where the performance of the contract is "pri mar ily" in Montgom ery County or, regardless of where performance takes place, when the contract is merely signed in Montgom ery Cou nty. 1 The dispositive issue before us is whether the

Montgom ery County ordinance is a valid "local law" under Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution. We shall hold that, because of its significant extraterritorial impact, the ordinance is not a "local law" and that the Montgom ery County Counc il exceeded the authority delegated to charter home rule counties in enacting the ordinance. I. On August 3, 1993, the Montgomery County Counc il enacted Bill No. 22-92, which added

Download Holiday v. Montgomery County.pdf

Maryland Law