Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Schisler v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided September 14, 2006No. 140 September Term, 2005Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judges HARRELL and RAKER

concur and dissent as follows.

Although there is much in Judge Cathell’s, Judge Wilner’s, and Judge Battaglia’s opinions that is commendable, we find ourselves unable to join fully any of them. This is because we conclude that, while the Legislature possesses the power to modify the terms of service of the incumbent members of the Public Service Commission (PSC) so as to terminate their service as of 30 June 2006, it went too far when, in fashioning an ad hoc and utterly novel appointment procedure to govern solely the selection of the immediate successors to the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Washington v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Mayor of Baltimore v. State ex rel. Board of PoliceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
  4. Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
  5. Commission on Medical Discipline v. StillmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981

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