Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gilmer v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 7, 2005No. 14, September Term, 2005Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

HARRELL, Judge.

I dissent. The Majority opinion errs when it declares ambiguous the use of “dismissal” in § 6-218(b)(2) based only on consideration of that word in isolation. Though it pays lip service to considering the need to “construe the statute as a whole” (Maj. op. at 663, 887 A.2d at 553), the Majority opinion thereafter confines its analysis to (b)(2) and fails to give meaningful consideration to the place “dismissal” occupies within the complete structure of the Legislature’s scheme in the larger statutory sub-section of which (b)(2) is but a part. See Johnson v.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Frost v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  2. Montgomery County v. BuckmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. Price v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  4. Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  5. Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991

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