Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Cager

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 3, 1968No. [No. 353, September Term, 1967.]Published

1DissentBarnes, J.

I dissent because, in my opinion, the majority (1) has misinterpreted Code (1957) Article 26, Section 52 (f), as amended by Chapter 723 of the Acts of 1963, and (2) has erred in holding that there has been a violation of federal and state requirements of confidentiality in the use of Form 218.(1)

In Article 26, Section 52 (f) the General Assembly under the subheading “Juvenile Causes,” defines what is a “neglected child.” There are six separate and alternative criteria, the establishment of any one of which will indicate that the child is a “neglected child.” These criteria are separately…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Maryland Medical Service, Inc. v. CarverCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  2. Ross v. PickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1952
  3. United States Ex Rel. Anthony Vitiello v. Walter J. Flood, Warden of the Nassau County JailCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
  4. Board of Supervisors of Elections v. WeissCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
  5. Moquin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958

12 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