Legal Opinion · Dissent

Earl v. Anchor Pontiac Buick, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 12, 1967No. [No. 358, September Term, 1966.]Published

1DissentBarnes, J.

Although I am personally sympathetic to the difficulty in which the appellant finds himself in this case, I must dissent because, in my opinion, he is not entitled to have us remand the case without affirmance or reversal pursuant to Maryland Rule 871 a.

As I indicated in my recent dissent in State v. Giles, 245 Md. 660, 229 A. 2d 97 (1967), the proper construction of Rule 871 a is that the reason for the remand without affirmance or reversal must appear from the record in the case before us, and not from evidence, newly discovered or otherwise, which is not in the record on appeal. There is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. White v. KingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  2. Fletcher v. Havre De Grace Fireworks Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
  3. State v. GilesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API