Legal Opinion

Silvestri v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 27, 1964No. [App. No. 142, September Term, 1963.]PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

In this application for leave to appeal from the finding of the lower court that he was a defective delinquent, the applicant alleges: (1) that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the finding; (2) that there was evidence that he is now well adjusted and should be transferred from Patuxent to the Institution for Men; (3) that the only evidence produced by the State was the testimony of the director of Patuxent based on reports made by other staff members who were not present in court and available for cross-examination; and (4) that the lower court did not pay strict attention to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McCloskey v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  2. Faulkner v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  3. Schultz v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
  4. Cooper v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  5. Fairbanks v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1961

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Gray v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  2. Murel v. DirectorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  3. Johns v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  4. Daniels v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  5. Hall v. Director Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967

13 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