Moss v. Director
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtDigges, J.
Orth, J., dissents and filed a dissenting opinion at page 569 infra.
The issue in this case is whether the petitioner’s confinement at the Patuxent Institution is proper. Since we conclude that a statutory condition precedent to his institutionalization there was not complied with, we are constrained to hold that petitioner Edward Arnold Moss must be released from Patuxent and returried to the custody of the Department of Correction to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Initially, we think it appropriate to delineate briefly those procedures which must be followed before one is committed to…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- McNeil v. Director, Patuxent InstitutionSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal CourtSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Director of Patuxent Institution v. DANIELS OF PATUXENT INSTITUTIONCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
- Eggleston v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
- Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. FrankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- In Re James S.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- In Re Anthony R.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Prince George's County v. VieiraCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.