Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Ryan S.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 22, 2002No. 85, September Term, 2001Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRaker, Judge

I join the judgment of the Court and join in Part III C of the majority opinion insofar as it reverses the judgment of the District Court, sitting as a Juvenile Court in Montgomery County, on the grounds that the court erred in ordering petitioner and his mother to pay restitution to Kaiser Perma-nente, the medical insurer in this case. I agree that Maryland Code § 3-829 (1996, 1998 RepLVol., 2001 Supp.) of the Courts and Judicial Proceeding Article does not permit a court to award an insurer restitution when the insurer did not directly compensate the victim. Unlike the majority, however, I…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re Keith W.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  2. In Re Ryan S.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  3. In re Vanessa C.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API