Subsequent Injury Fund v. Chapman, 95

Decision Date01 September 1971
Docket NumberNo. 95,95
Citation277 A.2d 444,262 Md. 367
PartiesSUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND v. Katherine E. CHAPMAN, Widow of Henry Bernard Chapman. ,
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Maurice J. Pressman and David M. Brenner, Baltimore, for appellee.

Submitted to HAMMOND, C.J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

This Court, having granted a writ of certiorari and in accordance with Maryland Rule 811 b having determined that no error of law appears in the decision, adopts the opinion of Chief Judge Murphy for the Court of Special Appeals in Subsequent Injury Fund v. Chapman, 11 Md.App. 369, 274 A.2d 870, and affirms the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Subsequent Injury Fund v. Ehrman
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1991
    ...its liability for compensation is at issue. See Subsequent Injury Fund v. Chapman, 11 Md.App. 369, 375, 274 A.2d 870, aff'd, 262 Md. 367, 277 A.2d 444 (1971). As we perceive them, the terms "party," "person," "defend the action," and "afford the Fund an opportunity to defend the claim" are ......
  • UNINSURED EMPLOYERS v. Pennel, 1788
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 5, 2000
    ...intention and place that intent into effect." Subsequent Injury Fund v. Chapman, 11 Md.App. 369, 375, 274 A.2d 870,aff'd,262 Md. 367, 277 A.2d 444 (1971). When the words in a statute could be given more than one meaning, "the court may consider the consequences resulting from one meaning, r......
  • Podgurski v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 2003
    ...of the Act must be read and considered together as they are a part of one general statutory scheme. See Subsequent Injury Fund v. Chapman, 262 Md. 367, 277 A.2d 444 (1971); Howard Contracting Co. v. Yeager, 184 Md. 503, 41 A.2d 494 ...
  • DeBusk v. Johns Hopkins Hosp.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1995
    ...together to arrive at the intent of the Legislature. Subsequent Injury Fund v. Chapman, 11 Md.App. 369, 274 A.2d 870, aff'd, 262 Md. 367, 277 A.2d 444 (1971). As the Hospital points out in its brief to this Court, numerous other statutes within the Act support our interpretation of the term......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT