Legal Opinion · Dissent

BALTIMORE COUNTY BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. Comes

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 13, 1967No. [No. 391, September Term, 1966.]Published

1Dissent

*191Barnís, J.,

dissenting.

I dissent because, in my opinion, the majority has added a provision to the ordinance which is not there and was not intended by the legislative body to be included in the ordinance.

I will admit that I am attracted by the pious statements and high moral position appearing in the quotations from several cases cited in the majority opinion. The problem before us, however, is not one of morality or “divine justice,” as it were. The question presented is the mundane one of statutory interpretation.

As I see the problem, there is really nothing in the ordinance to construe.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Schmeizl v. SchmeizlCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  2. Rogan v. B. O.R.R. Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
  3. State Ex Rel. Kirby v. Board of Fire CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
  4. State v. ComesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  5. Scaggs v. Baltimore & Washington Rail RoadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1856

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API