Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Unger v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 24, 2012No. 111Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HARRELL, J.,

concurring and dissenting, in which ADKINS, J., joins.

Although I agree with the disposition in the Majority opinion of the State’s motion to dismiss, I dissent otherwise. The Majority opinion ignores the long-standing principles of stare decisis and executes a relatively abrupt and unjustified about-face from our holding in State v. Adams, 406 Md. 240, 958 A.2d 295 (2008). The only thing that appears to have changed in the few intervening years between Adams and now is the composition of the Court. In addition, in order to overrule Adams, the Majority opinion exercises unwisely…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

41 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