Legal Opinion
Abrams v. Lamone
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided March 26, 2007No. 142, September Term, 2005PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Plurality Opinion by BELL, C.J., which WILNER and CATHELL, JJ., join.
This case is the first of two pertaining to the eligibility requirements of a candidate for the office of the Attorney General of Maryland.1 The genesis of this case was the attempt by Mr. Thomas E. Perez (“Perez”), an attorney and law professor, one of the appellees, to run for the office of the *151Attorney General of Maryland in the 2006 Gubernatorial Primary Election. Article V, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution prescribes the qualifications for that office. It provides:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of…
2Cases cited85 opinions
- Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Tucker v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- DiPino v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- State of Penn. v. THE WHEELING &C. BRIDGE CO.Supreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Condon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Liddy v. LamoneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Bryan v. FawkesSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2014
- Bysiewicz v. DinardoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- VNA Hospice of Md. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENECourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- Hubbard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.