Young v. State
| Decision Date | 12 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 196,196 |
| Citation | 266 Md. 438,294 A.2d 467 |
| Parties | Michael George YOUNG v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals.
Submitted on the Petition by Thomas C. Hayden, Jr., La Plata, for appellant.
Submitted to BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
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 Judge Moylan for the Court of Special Appeals in Young v. State, 15 Md.App. 707, 292 A.2d 137 and affirms the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
21 cases
-
State v. Frazier
... ... 2 ... Page 427 ... Soon after § 591 was enacted, but prior to the adoption of Rule 746, it was held in [470 A.2d 1272] Young v. State, 15 Md.App. 707, 292 A.2d 137, summarily aff'd, 266 Md. 438, 294 A.2d 467 (1972), that the requirements of § 591 were only "directory" and not mandatory. Seven years later, however, in State v. Hicks, supra, we overruled the Young case, held that the time period for trying a circuit ... ...
-
Jones v. State
... ... Nevertheless, the critical language of Rule 746, upon which our decision in this case was based, was essentially unchanged from the language in Art. 27, § 591, which was incorporated by reference in former Rule 740 and was construed as being only directory in Young v. State [15 Md.App. 707, 292 A.2d 137, summarily aff'd, 266 Md. 438, 294 A.2d 467 (1972) ], supra. Consequently, our holdings in the instant case did overrule a prior interpretation of the same language and did set forth a new interpretation of that language. Thus, the case is an appropriate ... ...
-
McClain v. State
...noncompliance with the 120-day requirement. In so interpreting the rule, we in effect overruled an earlier precedent, Young v. State, 266 Md. 438, 294 A.2d 467 (1972), which held the provisions of a similarly worded statute to be directory only. Hicks involved, as here, a nonconstitutional ......
-
State v. Hicks
...noncompliance. We adopted that view by summarily approving the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. See Young v. State, 266 Md. 438, 294 A.2d 467 (1972). Section 591 is plainly a declaration of legislative policy designed to obtain prompt disposition of criminal charges; its enactment m......
Get Started for Free