Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund v. Hamilton
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, C. J.
We are here confronted with that often frustrating but sometimes gratifying judicial duty of ascertaining the intent of the legislature; frustrating because in Maryland there usually is little prepassage evidence of intent, and gratifying because the usual paucity of objective evidence leaves room for the exercise of judicial perceptiveness and perspicacity in determining intent.
The Maryland Unsatisfied 'Claim and Judgment Fund Law (the Statute), Code (1S67 Repl. Vol.), Art. 66y2, §§ 150 to 179, provides in §§ 158, 159 and 160 that a qualified person who holds a valid judgment in excess of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- New York Mutual Life Insurance v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Robson v. RodriquezSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
- Height v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
- Zeagler v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of NYDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1964
- Maddy v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- James v. Prince George's CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. GartelmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- Givertz v. Maine Medical CenterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
- Director of Fin., Pr. Geo's Co. v. ColeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.