Richmond v. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND

990 A.2d 549, 412 Md. 672, 2010 Md. LEXIS 73
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMarch 5, 2010
Docket54 September Term, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 990 A.2d 549 (Richmond v. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richmond v. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND, 990 A.2d 549, 412 Md. 672, 2010 Md. LEXIS 73 (Md. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

ORDER.

The Appellants in this case have sought a declaratory judgment that they and the class of indigent persons they represent have the right to be represented by the Public Defender during an initial appearance before a District Court Commissioner. The Appellants have not, however, joined the Public Defender as a party. Under these circumstances, the Circuit Court should have dismissed the Complaint pursuant to Md. Rule 2-211(a). Although the parties have agreed that the issues presented in this case satisfy the prerequisites of Md. Rule 2-231, the Circuit Court should not have accepted that agreement before the Public Defender had the opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether this case should be maintained as a class action, as well as on the issue of whether the Public Defender is obligated to represent an indigent defendant during his or her initial appearance before a District Court Commissioner. It is therefore, this 5th day of March, 2010, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority concurring:

ORDERED that the judgment of the Circuit Court be and is hereby VACATED; and it is further

ORDERED that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court; and it is further

*673 ORDERED that the Circuit Court, as soon as is reasonably practical, enter a conditional order of refusal to certify this case as a class action; and it is further

ORDERED that the Circuit Court enter an Order dismissing the Complaint on April 6, 2010, unless by that date Appellants have joined the Public Defender as a party in this case. Mandate to issue forthwith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DeWolfe v. Richmond
76 A.3d 1019 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
990 A.2d 549, 412 Md. 672, 2010 Md. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-v-district-court-of-maryland-md-2010.