Legal Opinion

Diamond v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 14, 1973No. [No. 150, September Term, 1972.]PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDigges, J.

After the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Harris, J.) denied appellants, John and Lovetta Diamond, permission to sue the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Board under what was Maryland Code (1957, 1970 Repl. Vol.), Art. 66¥2, § 7-621, this appeal followed. 1 *3 That section in part reads:

“Any qualified person, who, after June 1, 1964, suffers damages resulting from bodily injury or death or damage to property caused by an operator or owner whose whereabouts cannot be ascertained . . . may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order permitting him to bring an action therefor…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jones v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund BoardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
  2. Hickman v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund BoardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  3. Cherry v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund BoardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. CraddockCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  2. Esposito v. Maryland Automobile Insurance FundCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API