Background
The Maryland Military Department terminated an employee, Wayne Harrington, and the matter was reviewed by the Office of Administrative Hearings, which issued an order on April 3, 2025 adverse to the Department. The Department sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, which affirmed the administrative order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with it.
The Department appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland but failed to file the Civil Appeal Information Report required by Maryland Rule 8-205(b). The Appellate Court notified the parties of the deficiency and warned that failure to file the report within 15 days could result in dismissal. The Department did not comply, and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on January 23, 2026.
The Department then filed a petition for writ of certiorari and a motion for immediate remand to the Supreme Court of Maryland, arguing that the omission was the result of excusable errors by counsel and that, because the Appellate Court had already dismissed the appeal and lost jurisdiction, it had no forum in which to present that argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted both the petition for writ of certiorari and the motion for immediate remand in part. The Court vacated the Appellate Court’s January 23, 2026 order dismissing the Department’s appeal.
The case was remanded to the Appellate Court solely so that the Department may present its contention that the failure to file the Civil Appeal Information Report was the product of excusable errors or neglect. The Supreme Court did not itself resolve whether the neglect was excusable; that determination is left for the Appellate Court on remand.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s failure to file a Civil Appeal Information Report under Maryland Rule 8-205(b), after proper notice, can result in dismissal of the appeal.
- Where dismissal has already occurred and the lower appellate court has lost jurisdiction, a petitioner may seek relief in the Supreme Court of Maryland by arguing it had no opportunity to raise an excusable-neglect defense below.
- The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari and remand here gives the Department the chance to argue excusable neglect before the Appellate Court — it does not guarantee reinstatement of the appeal.
Why It Matters
This per curiam order clarifies a practical escape valve for litigants caught in a procedural bind: when a court dismisses an appeal for a filing deficiency before counsel can invoke excusable neglect, certiorari to the Supreme Court of Maryland may be the only remaining avenue to reopen the case. The decision signals that the high court will intervene to ensure litigants have at least one opportunity to explain a procedural failure before an appeal is permanently lost.
For practitioners representing government agencies and other institutional appellants, the case is a reminder that ministerial filing requirements like the Civil Appeal Information Report carry real jurisdictional consequences. Counsel should treat notice-of-deficiency letters from appellate clerks as urgent deadlines requiring immediate action.