Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Maryland Board of Physicians v. Geier

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 23, 2017No. 11/16Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

McDonald, J.

I agree with the Majority opinion to the extent that it addresses the merits of this appeal. I would, however, go farther and address the question of immunity. This Court has adopted from federal practice the collateral order doctrine—a doctrine that provides for consideration of certain interlocutory appeals. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co., 284 Md. 86, 91-92, 394 A.2d 801 (1978); State v. Hogg, 311 Md. 446, 455-57,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Behrens v. PelletierSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  5. State v. HoggCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988

3 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