DOCSLIB.ORG

Maryland Business and Technology Court Task Force Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maryland Business and Technology Court Task Force Report MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY COURT TASK FORCE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 1 III. HOUSE BILL 15 (Chapter 10 of the Maryland Acts of 2000).......... 2 IV. INPUT FROM THE BUSINESS AND LEGAL COMMUNITIES .. 4 V. EXPERIENCE OF OTHER STATES ............................................... 5 VI. FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 5 VII. EXPEDITED APPEALS ................................................................... 12 VIII. ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).............................................. 14 IX. ELECTRONIC FILING..................................................................... 15 X. CONCLUSION.................................................................................. 17 APPENDIX A (Input From The Maryland Business And Legal Communities) ........................................................ 19 APPENDIX B (Experience Of Other States)................................................. 23 APPENDIX C (List of Members).................................................................. 26 1316871 i MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY COURT TASK FORCE REPORT Created by House Bill 15 Chapter 10 of the Maryland Acts of 2000 Wilbur D. Preston, Jr. Chairman Hon. Steven I. Platt Vice-Chairman Robert D. Kalinoski Hon. Charles B. Day Susan M. Souder James I. Keane Wesley D. Blakeslee Michael Hickman Ava Lias-Booker Alan R. Duncan Dr. Nariman Farvardin Christopher R. McCleary John C. Weiss, III Sen. Leo Green Sen. Leonard Teitelbaum Hon. John C. Eldridge Del. Anthony G. Brown Hon. Marielsa A. Bernard Del. John A. Hurson Steven E. Tiller Reporter Eric G. Orlinsky Consultant 1 BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TASK FORCE REPORT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a report of the Maryland Business and Technology Court Task Force created by the General Assembly to consider the feasibility of establishing a specialized court function within Maryland’s Circuit Courts to adjudicate business and technology disputes. This blue-ribbon task force included appointees from the Maryland Judiciary, Maryland’s House and Senate, the Maryland State Bar Association and members of the Maryland business and academic communities. After hearing from the business community, judges, legislators, lawyers and representatives of other “business courts,” the Task Force recommends establishing a statewide program with specially trained judges and mediators to resolve substantial disputes affecting business entities, including the unique and specialized issues involving technology. The Task Force considered a separate court division within only certain counties, but concluded that creating local specialized courts was not needed or desired by many judges and lawyers, and would unfairly discriminate against business entities located in other areas of the State. The Task Force reviewed different models of “business courts” implemented in other jurisdictions. Recognizing the effectiveness of Maryland’s Differentiated Case Management (“DCM”) system, the Task Force concluded that a “program” based, in part, on different models of business courts in other states would best take advantage of the current DCM system, while providing a unique and specialized forum for handling business and technology disputes. Establishing a business and technology dispute management program like the one detailed in this report provides Maryland with a unique opportunity to substantially improve its perception among the business and technology communities as a preferred place to do business. In the competitive national market for business, establishment of such a program will serve to increase Maryland’s reputation as a place where disputes involving substantial business interests are effectively and efficiently resolved, thus increasing Maryland’s reputation as a favorable forum.1 II. BACKGROUND Over the past decade, the Internet has grown at a tremendous rate. At the start of the Clinton administration, there were less than a dozen sites on the worldwide web. This number currently totals in the hundreds of millions. In light of the significant advances brought about by not only the Internet, but also the bioscience, aerospace, and information technology industries, to name only a few, the business environment is 1 Although providing great insight and perspective to the Task Force during its deliberations, Judge John Eldridge, Senior Judge of Maryland’s Court of Appeals, respectfully abstained from participating in the recommendations and findings included in this report. Judge Eldridge believes that given his position as a Judge on the Court of Appeals, and the likely event that the Court of Appeals will be required to examine the adoption of rules to effect the recommendations contained herein, it is proper for him to abstain from inclusion in the report. 1 changing at light speed. Business models that couldn’t have even been imagined a few years ago are now commonplace. These technological advancements have, however, created interesting dilemmas for all three branches of federal and state government. In the legislative arena, elected officials must have a keen awareness of the significance of technological trends, as well as a healthy regard for the limits of their ability to control them. The executive branch is confronted with a similar dilemma. Regulations may prove necessary to protect the public and prevent the improper use of technology, while at the same time, efforts must be made to limit the breadth of such regulations so as not to chill creative thought. The role of the judiciary is even more problematic since its role is by design more re- active than pro-active. Judges will be confronted with new and unique issues never before seen as a result of emerging technology and new business models. Judicial decisions will have to look forward to the potential impact of technology, as well as back to established legal precedent. The Judiciary can nevertheless take a leadership role in the development of new rules and enhancements in its functions to adapt to these new challenges. Just as our judicial system created the state wide District Court system and the nationally regarded DCM system, the pressure to change offers the Judiciary an opportunity to forge its own adaptive institutions. Maryland is poised at the forefront of the technological revolution. Already, Maryland has one of the largest concentration of bioscience and aerospace companies in the country. Maryland is first in the nation of percentage of technological workers in the work force and can also claim top honors among states receiving research and development awards from the National Institutes of Health. Today, information technology is Maryland’s largest economic impact cluster. Maryland’s information technology industry added over eighteen thousand new technology jobs between 1993 and 1998 bringing the total employment attributable to the information technology industry to well over 100,000. As of 1998, information technology firms employed 56 of every 1,000 private sector workers in the State, and it is believed that this number has significantly increased in the last two years. Maryland also has one of the highest percentage of on-line households in the country with forty-six percent of Maryland homes connected to the Internet. Despite these impressive statistics, Maryland is still generally perceived by the business community as anti-business. Whether accurate or not, such perception is often viewed as reality. In an effort to change this perception, Maryland’s General Assembly, as part of an overall plan to encourage technology companies to locate in the State (which includes, among other things, adoption of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act and the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act), passed House Bill 15 establishing this Task Force to consider the feasibility of the establishment of a specialized court function to effectively and efficiently administer business and technology disputes. III. HOUSE BILL 15 (Chapter 10 of the Maryland Acts of 2000) The General Assembly expressly stated its intent in passing House Bill 15 as follows: 2 It is the intent of the General Assembly that: (1) business and technology matters be treated efficiently and effectively in the judicial system; and (2) the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals consider the feasibility of the establishment of a business and technology court division in Maryland, based on a study to be completed by the Business and Technology Division Task Force, in order to enable the circuit courts to handle business and technology matters in the most coordinated, efficient, and responsive manner, and to afford convenient access to lawyers and litigants involved in business and technology matters. In establishing the Task Force, the General Assembly mandated that it solicit input from both the Maryland business and legal communities, commence a review of the experience of other states in creating so called business courts, and prepare a report on its findings and recommendations to the Court of Appeals, the Governor, The Lieutenant Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Delegates, the House Judiciary Committee, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, and the General Assembly. The General Assembly required this report to include a consideration of all operational
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALFREDO JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Colorado --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PHILIP L. TORREY Counsel of Record CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND CLINICAL PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 6 Everett Street, Suite 3105 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-0638 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires counsel to provide correct legal advice to noncitizen-defendants about the immigration con- sequences of a prospective guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 368–69 (2010). If federal law is “succinct, clear, and explicit” about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, then defense counsel’s duty to explain those consequences is equally clear. Id. at 368. In con- trast, defense counsel need
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions
    Maryland Law Review Volume 38 | Issue 2 Article 7 Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions, 38 Md. L. Rev. 242 (1978) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol38/iss2/7 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS THE INHERENT POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION v. CLARK Maryland courts have frequently claimed an inherent power to review and correct arbitrary, illegal, capricious, or unreasonable administrative decisions.' Recently, however, in State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark,2 the Maryland Court of Appeals restricted the scope of this power by finding that a circuit court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether administrative authority to reduce a real property assessment pursuant to article 81, section 67 of the Maryland Code was exercised in an arbitrary fashion.3 The Court of Appeals held that the circuit courts' jurisdiction is limited to questions concerning the constitutionality of the administrator's actions. 4 Clark implicitly recognized that circuit courts 1. E.g., Zion Evangelical Luth. Church v. State Highway Admin., 276 Md.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
    Their Story: The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County The Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Honorable Albert W. Northrop Born in Illinois, the Honorable Albert W. Northrop is the son of an U.S. Air Force chaplain. As a result, he and his family moved every few years. Judge Northrop attended University of Maryland at Munich Campus, in Munich, Germany. Shortly after, Judge Northrop transferred to University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland where he received his bachelor’s of arts degree in June 1969. Following, he returned to the University of Maryland School of Law and received his law degree in 1974. One year later, in 1975, he was admitted to the Maryland Bar. He entered private practice of law in February 1975. Judge Northrop was appointed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in June 2006. Judge Northrop served as an Associate Judge of District Court of Maryland, District 5, Prince George’s County from January 2003 to June 2006. Judge Northrop was sworn in as a Judge of the Orphans Court for Prince George’s County in August 1986. During his time as Judge of Orphans Court, Judge Northrop co-authored, “Decedents’ Estates in Maryland” published by Mitchie Law Book Publishing. In October 2017, Judge Northrop retired from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Honorable C. Philip Nichols, Jr. A fifth generation Prince Georgian, C. Philip Nichols, Jr. graduated from Georgetown University in 1969 and received his law degree from University of Baltimore School of Law in 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia
    Notes Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia The 1982 trial of John Hinckley for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan brought to the public's attention a unique fea- ture of the criminal justice system in the District of Columbia. Although federal and state charges never are joined together for trial, federal and D.C. Code charges may be joined in one indictment under section 11- 502(3) of the D.C. Code,' and tried before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.' In the Hinckley case, the federal prosecutor used section 11-502(3) to join three federal and ten D.C. Code charges. This joinder required the district court to determine whether to use both federal and D.C. Code evidentiary standards during the trial, or only one standard. The court ruled that only federal standards would be used,' and therefore placed the 1. Under D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-502(3) (1981), the United States District Court has jurisdiction over "[any offense under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia which offense is joined in the same information or indictment with any Federal offense." A similar but more limited jurisdictional statute is found at D.C. CODE ANN. § 23-311(b) (1981): Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information as provided in subsection (a) [offenses charged are of similar character or based on same transaction] even though one or more is in violation of the laws of the United States and another is in violation of the laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia and may be prosecuted as pro- vided in Section 11-502(3).
    [Show full text]
  • Summons and Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample
    Summons And Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample Ethan still dibbing defiantly while undescendable Jameson curse that metage. Mathias remains secularistic after Hagen overwriting anticipatively or courts any yammer. Panzer and cosher Clare unburden his falx intoning emits untidily. Responding to contest Divorce let Law poverty-help Center. If the plaintiff fails to pit the summons and complaint on a. Motion for complaint if you sent a claim, property damage is software accessed through physical custody sample complaint and summons circuit court virginia have been received a summons which you and. For special interrogatories in the system and circuit in which you can sign. In order for reading to cramp a posture in Virginia either tree or your in must break a. What you might be added to a sample complaint form to do not believe those addresses are sample response to answer to keep your papers initiating papers. Where they I file a Conciliation Court claim If and case involves bad checks the superior should be filed in middle District seven of separate county retain the checks were. Docket no response explaining what each defense attorney in virginia and circuit court summons. Juhtumeid on child custody order vacating default by name search, which together can search online, subpoena relates and circuit and summons complaint court payments online electronic system provides helpful information. Service failure the summons and complaint on a corporation is governed by Fed R Civ P 4h. Clerks under penalty for summons and complaint circuit court virginia sample from abuse claims? Rule 35 The Summons Va R Sup Ct 35 Casetext.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Courts of the DC Circuit
    The Evolution of the Courts of the D.C. Circuit (For almost 200 years, the judicial system of the District of Columbia dealt with a commixture of federal and local concerns born of its unique character as the capital of all the states, yet not a state. Faced with the needs of a growing population and an increasingly complex federal government, Congress repeatedly reorganized the District of Columbia courts, reallocating jurisdiction for federal and local matters between the various courts, sometimes unifying the courts, sometimes dividing them. The federal courts that constitute today’s District of Columbia Circuit emerged in their current role in 1971.) The Early Years Congress established the District of Columbia in 1791. However, the District’s judiciary was not created until ten years later, three months after Congress and the President, John Adams, set up shop in Washington. During the intervening decade the courts of Maryland and Virginia continued to be used in the portion carved out of each state. After establishing a framework for the federal judiciary for the rest of the nation, Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of February 27, 1801, creating a Circuit Court to meet the needs of the District of Columbia. The Court’s jurisdiction was broad, encompassing not only most of the authority of a federal circuit court, including its appellate jurisdiction, but also that of a state trial court. The act divided the District into two counties, Alexandria and Washington. The three judges were required to hold four sessions a year in each county. When it acted as a state court, it applied the law and procedures of Virginia and Maryland, depending on which side of the river it sat.
    [Show full text]
  • New Role of State Supreme Courts As Engines of Court Reform
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 81 NOVEMBER 2006 NUMBER 5 BRENNAN LECTURE THE NEW ROLE OF STATE SUPREME COURTS AS ENGINES OF COURT REFORM RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIANA* In this speech delivered for the annual Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice, the Honorable Randall T. Shepard examines the growing role of state supreme courts in remaking the American system of justice. The vast size of the state court system, the flexibility of state rulemaking authority, and recent changes in the way state courts are financed have placed these high courts at the forefront of efforts to administerand reform their states' court systems. Chief Justice Shepard explores three major areas of court reform led by state supreme courts. First, state high courts have reformed the American jury by making it more inclusive and representative, and by improving its decisionmaking capabilities. Second, these courts have implemented new initiatives to ensure equal access to justice by providing legal assistance to low-income individuals in civil cases, creating pro bono programs, and assisting pro se litigants. Third, state supreme courts have fostered equal opportunity by addressing bias and disparate treatment within the court system, and by working to ensure that the legal profes- sion itself is open to all people. Finally, Chief Justice Shepard describes a range of other ways in which state supreme courts have been remaking their states' court systems, from creating specialized courts to training judges in the sciences. In a profession that is fond of traditionand slow to change, many of these reforms could only proceed with leadership from state high courts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Movement to Reorganize the Court of Appeals of Maryland, 6 Md
    Maryland Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 2 Article 1 The oM vement to Reorganize the Court of Appeals of Maryland William C. Walsh Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Legal History, Theory and Process Commons Recommended Citation William C. Walsh, The Movement to Reorganize the Court of Appeals of Maryland, 6 Md. L. Rev. 119 (1942) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol6/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maryland Law Review VOLUME VI FEBRUARY, 1942 NuMBR 2 THE MOVEMENT TO REORGANIZE THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND By WILLIAM C. WALSH* The Constitution of 1867 established the present-Mary- land Court of Appeals, and as so established three-quarters of a century ago, it has continued without change. The Court is composed of the seven Chief Judges of the seven Judicial Circuits into which the State outside of Bal- timore City is divided, and of an eighth Judge especially elected to the Court by the voters of Baltimore City, which comprises the Eighth Circuit. In addition to their appel- late duties, the County members preside at trials, sit in equity cases, and perform all other customary nisi prius judicial functions in their respective circuits. The Balti- more City member performs appellate work only, except in those rare instances where he is called upon to sit in a habeas corpus case.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Maryland Judiciary
    3 . \ ""£ " D D D RJ mm ^.J Ui © Q\ MMLYlMm JUBIQAMWJ ANNUAL REPORT of the MARYLAND JUDICIARY 1983-1984 Administrative Office of the Courts Courts of Appeal Building Post Office Box 431 Annapolis, Maryland 21404 301/269-2141 I m RECEIVED nuv zOiybb LAW L!3RA,JvY 7TH CIRCUIT UUURf-LlbKArtii u&MJia uibK. PRINQ&fiEORGFS mUWPf COVER PHOTOGRAPHS 1. District Court Multi-Service Center—Catonsville, Baltimore County 2. The District Court Building—Annapolis, Anne Arundel County 3. District Court Multi-Service Center—Glen Burnie, Anne Arundel County 4. District Court Multi-Service Center—Denton, Caroline County 5. District Court Multi-Service Center—Essex, Baltimore County 6. Multi-Service Courthouse Complex—Frederick, Frederick County I 7. District Court Multi-Service Center—Bel Air, Harford County 8. District Court Multi-Service Center—Ellicott City, Howard County 9. The Court Annex Building—Westminster, Carroll County 10. District Court Multi-Service Center—Elkton, Cecil County 11. District Court Multi-Service Center—Centreville, Queen Anne's County LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Page 1 District Court Multi-Service Center, Ellicott City, Howard County 3 Multi-Service Courthouse Complex, Frederick, Frederick County 8 District Court Multi-Service Center, Bel Air, Harford County 15 District Court Multi-Service Center, Ellicott City, Howard County 16 District Court Multi-Service Center, Elkton, Cecil County 16 District Court Building, Annapolis, Anne Arundel County 17 District Court Multi-Service Center, Denton, Caroline County 18 District Court Multi-Service
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Maryland Judiciary
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MARYLAND JUDICIARY '.'< 1987 .. 1988 () fAfl ~ ,,....<:-.0 \1\ \.ft '"--lita /12.55 0 i\NNUAL EPORT OF THE l\!1[ARYLAND JUDICIARY 1987-1988 N~';:;;'JRS tJfDW 8 1985 AQQUl.~t~i'l:·eN·S Administrative Office of the Courts Courts of Appeal Building Post Office Box 431 Annapolis, Maryland 21404 3011974-2141 COVER: Restored Stained Glass Dome, Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., Courthouse, Baltimore Report prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts Michael V. O'Malley Peter 1 Lally Faye Gaskin Nonna P. Gainer Photographs: Courtesy of Maryland Department of Economic and Employment Development-Office of Tourism Development --- -----------~------- ------ Letter of Transmittal .............................................. v Introduction ..................................................... Vll Judicial Revenues and Expenditures ................................. 1 The Maryland Courts .................. ,........................... 7 The Court of Appeals ......................................... 11 The Court of Special Appeals .............. ,................... 21 The Circuit Courts ........................................... 33 The District Court ........................................... 73 Judicial Administration ........................................... 87 Administrative Office of the Courts ............................. 89 Judicial Education and Information Services. .. 90 Judicial Information Systems. .. .. .. .. 90 Judicial Special Projects
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Roles, Work and Performance - Part I
    University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law Faculty Scholarship Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty 1977 The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Roles, Work and Performance - Part I William L. Reynolds University of Maryland School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Courts Commons Digital Commons Citation Reynolds, William L., "The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Roles, Work and Performance - Part I" (1977). Faculty Scholarship. 744. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/744 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maryland Law Review VOLUME 37 1977 NUMBER 1 @Copyright Maryland Law Review, Inc. 1977 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND: ROLES, WORK AND PERFORMANCE-Part I WILLIAM L. REYNOLDS, II* Appellate courts play a central role in our legal system, yet their operations are not always well understood. Interest in problems of appellate decision-making led me to undertake this study of the Court of Appeals of Maryland. My curiosity was aroused in part by the controversial recommendation that the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court be modified to provide that Court with greater control over its docket.' Because the Court of Appeals of Maryland at present has almost complete control of its docket, it seemed a likely court to study for the effect of such control on the quality of decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    THE COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF MARYLAND COURTS FINAL REPORT December 15, 1996 990439' THE COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF MARYLAND COURTS FINAL REPORT December 15, 1996 Presented to the Governor and General Assembly of Maryland For further information or additional copies of this Report, please contact: Commission on the Future of Maryland Courts Post Office Box 49 Annapolis, Maryland 21404 Phone: (410) 269-6464 FAX: (410) 974-8244 1996 COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF MARYLAND COURTS Reprints authorized with acknowledgment of source. This report printed on 100 percent recycled paper. Commission on the Future of Maryland Courts 196 Duke of Gloucester, P.O. Box 49, Annapolis, Maryland 21404 • (410)269-6465 • fax (410) 974-8244 Members James J. Cromwell Rushern L. Baker, III Chairman P. Dennis Belman Albert Winchester, III F. Vernon Boozer Staff Director Eleanor M. Carey December 15,1996 Thomas E. Dewberry LaMont W. Flanagan William E. Hanna, Jr. JohnW.Hardwicke Ralph M. Hughes The Honorable Parris N. Glendening Vivian Jenkins Governor of Maryland Joseph H. H. Kaplan Richard Lavay The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. President of the Senate George M. Lipman Charles F. Mades The Honorable Casper R. Taylor, Jr. Norman J. Moore Speaker of the House of Delegates Theresa A. Nolan Dana C. Petersen The Honorable Members of the General Mary Louise Preis Assembly of Maryland George B. Riggin, Jr. Ida G. Ruben Ladies and Gentlemen: Catherine M. Shultz Stuart 0. Simms The Commission on the Future of Maryland Courts, created by Chapter 561 of the 1995 Acts William M. Stagg of the General Assembly, has completed its study.
    [Show full text]