50 Md. App. 65 - Bellamy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We think that the legislature did not intend that criminal charges should be dismissed because the Department of Mental Hygiene was late in filing its report. This is evidenced by two factors. First, the former art. 59, § 26 provided no sanction for failure to comply with its provisions. See, Resetar v. State Board of Education, 284 Md. 537, 548 , 399 A.2d 225 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 838 (1979); Maryland State Bar Association v. Frank, 272 Md. 528, 533 , 325 A.2d 718 (1974); Pope v. Secretary of Personnel, 46 Md. App. 716, 717 , 420 A.2d 1017 (1980). Second, it is significant to note that § 26 was amended, effective July 1, 1980 so that it now provides that, 'failure to comply with these time limitations shall not, of itself, result in dismissal of the charges.’ See, art. 59, § 26 (1980 Cum. Supp.). The 1980 amendment clearly evidences legislative intent to alleviate any doubt as to whether the sanction of dismissal is applicable to § 26. Additionally, as subsection (a) was not changed with the enactment of the new statute, it clearly would not be logical to assume that dismissal was the proper sanction under the former statute. In addition, we would be most reluctant to impose the extreme penalty of dismissal of the charges, absent a clear mandate from the legislature.” 50 Md. App. at 78-79.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brodak v. Brodak