ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Calling Back Retired Judges

ADVERTISEMENTS

Earlier this month, I wrote a blog post about Vermont Senator Patrick Leahys' proposal to allow retired Supreme Court justices to hear cases to avoid 4-4 splits in conflict situations, a issue that is getting attention because of the conflicts that Justice Kagan has for many pending cases.

The Maryland Court of Appeals has been doing this effectively for years, I wrote in the blog post. But while writing a blog post today on underinsured motorist lawsuits involving State Farm today, I took a look at the Maurer v. Penn National opinion from the court in 2007. But I noticed something in the opinion: four of the judges were retired when the opinion was issued. We all follow Maurer as the law but only two of the seven judges currently on the court - Judge Greene and Judge Harrell - participated in this opinion that is not yet three years old.

For those of you who are not lawyers, stare decisis is doctrine the Maryland Court of Appeals has applied with vigor: following prior court decisions unless there are very compelling circumstances. It means that a prior ruling being "wrong" is not alone grounds for reversal. I think every court in country relies on this doctrine, to varying degrees.

So I think it may be a concern that decision are made by a revolving door of judges when the court relies so heavily on stare decisis. Admittedly, "revolving door" is a little hyperbolic but if judges are restrained by stare decisis - a point this court repeatedly makes, calling a 17 year-old law "embedded in the bedrock of Maryland law " - should there be concern?

I Googled this theory before posting this and I have never found anyone who has ever raised this concern in Maryland or in any other court. I'm not really bold enough to suggest a change in the current process because I don't pretend to be an appellate scholar. I'm just throwing it out there because I have it on good authority that Judge Bell and many other Maryland Court of Appeal judges read this blog on a daily basis. (Okay, not really.)

Full post as published by Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog on October 21, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.018 secs (new cache)