bill exception in Maryland

2011In the final analysis, what tips the scale in favor of the State is the express language in the bill analysis that the bill breaks up sections containing multiple offenses so that there is only one offense per section or subsection. . . . 357 Md. at 162-63 , 742 A.2d 493 (citation omitted).

2011In the final analysis, what tips the scale in favor of the State is the express language in the bill analysis that the bill breaks up sections containing multiple offenses so that there is only one offense per section or subsection. . . . 357 Md. at 162-63 , 742 A.2d 493 (citation omitted).

1999United States v. Randolph, 93 F.3d 656, 660 (9th Cir.1996): United States v. Rivera-Gomez, 67 F.3d 993 , 996 n. 1 (1 st Cir.1995). [11] The Michigan carjacking statute, Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.529(a)(1)(1998 Supp.) provides: "A person who by force or violence, or by threat of force or violence, or by putting in fear robs, steals, or takes a motor vehicle[] from another person, in the presence of that person or the presence of a passenger or in the presence of any other person in lawful possession of the motor vehicle, is guilty of carjacking, a felony punishable by imprisonment of life or

1945Rule Rive of this Court (which is based on Section 12 of Article 5 of Flack’s Code) 1939, among other things, provides: “* * * but if a defect of proof be the ground of the ruling on exception, then the particulars in which the proof is supposed to be defective shall be briefly stated, and all the evidence offered in anywise connected with such supposed defect, shall be set out in the bill of exception.” The trial court thought the defect in the testimony was its legal insufficiency, to be submitted to the jury, to establish primary negligence, and the testimony should have been, under this ru

1945Rule Rive of this Court (which is based on Section 12 of Article 5 of Flack’s Code) 1939, among other things, provides: “* * * but if a defect of proof be the ground of the ruling on exception, then the particulars in which the proof is supposed to be defective shall be briefly stated, and all the evidence offered in anywise connected with such supposed defect, shall be set out in the bill of exception.” The trial court thought the defect in the testimony was its legal insufficiency, to be submitted to the jury, to establish primary negligence, and the testimony should have been, under this ru

1944And we feel that it was to questions of this character that Chief Judge Bond was referring in Lee v. State, 163 Md. 56 , 161 A. 284 , when he indicated that certain rulings of the trial court in a criminal case could be brought up for review without being embodied in a bill of exception, even though they involved the consideration of facts extrinsic of the record and not apparent on the face of the record itself.

1944And we feel that it was to questions of this character that Chief Judge Bond was referring in Lee v. State, 163 Md. 56 , 161 A. 284 , when he indicated that certain rulings of the trial court in a criminal case could be brought up for review without being embodied in a bill of exception, even though they involved the consideration of facts extrinsic of the record and not apparent on the face of the record itself.

1940The ruling on this prayer is presented by the fourth bill of exceptions, and instead of bringing up the action of the court on this and the other prayers in one bill of exception, there is a separate bill of exception for the ruling on every one of the prayers, so that the record is encumbered with eight bills of exceptions on the prayers instead of one, which is the sound and recognized practice. 2 Poe, Pl. & Pr. sec. 319 A; Beck & Co. v. Hamline, 122 Md. 68, 81 , 89 A. 377 ; McCosker v. Banks, 84 Md. 292 , 35 A. 935 ; Washington, B. & A. Elec.

1940The ruling on this prayer is presented by the fourth bill of exceptions, and instead of bringing up the action of the court on this and the other prayers in one bill of exception, there is a separate bill of exception for the ruling on every one of the prayers, so that the record is encumbered with eight bills of exceptions on the prayers instead of one, which is the sound and recognized practice. 2 Poe, Pl. & Pr. sec. 319 A; Beck & Co. v. Hamline, 122 Md. 68, 81 , 89 A. 377 ; McCosker v. Banks, 84 Md. 292 , 35 A. 935 ; Washington, B. & A. Elec.

1940The ruling on this prayer is presented by the fourth bill of exceptions, and instead of bringing up the action of the court on this and the other prayers in one bill of exception, there is a separate bill of exception for the ruling on every one of the prayers, so that the record is encumbered with eight bills of exceptions on the prayers instead of one, which is the sound and recognized practice. 2 Poe, Pl. & Pr. sec. 319 A; Beck & Co. v. Hamline, 122 Md. 68, 81 , 89 A. 377 ; McCosker v. Banks, 84 Md. 292 , 35 A. 935 ; Washington, B. & A. Elec.

1940The ruling on this prayer is presented by the fourth bill of exceptions, and instead of bringing up the action of the court on this and the other prayers in one bill of exception, there is a separate bill of exception for the ruling on every one of the prayers, so that the record is encumbered with eight bills of exceptions on the prayers instead of one, which is the sound and recognized practice. 2 Poe, Pl. & Pr. sec. 319 A; Beck & Co. v. Hamline, 122 Md. 68, 81 , 89 A. 377 ; McCosker v. Banks, 84 Md. 292 , 35 A. 935 ; Washington, B. & A. Elec.

1932Trego v. Skinner, 42 Md. 426, 431-433 ; Brian v. Thomas, 63 Md. 476, 480 ; Canton v. McGraw, 67 Md. 583, 590 , 11 A. 287 ; Beachey v. Heiple, 130 Md. 683, 689-691 , 101 A. 553 .

1932Trego v. Skinner, 42 Md. 426, 431-433 ; Brian v. Thomas, 63 Md. 476, 480 ; Canton v. McGraw, 67 Md. 583, 590 , 11 A. 287 ; Beachey v. Heiple, 130 Md. 683, 689-691 , 101 A. 553 .

1932Trego v. Skinner, 42 Md. 426, 431-433 ; Brian v. Thomas, 63 Md. 476, 480 ; Canton v. McGraw, 67 Md. 583, 590 , 11 A. 287 ; Beachey v. Heiple, 130 Md. 683, 689-691 , 101 A. 553 .

1932Trego v. Skinner, 42 Md. 426, 431-433 ; Brian v. Thomas, 63 Md. 476, 480 ; Canton v. McGraw, 67 Md. 583, 590 , 11 A. 287 ; Beachey v. Heiple, 130 Md. 683, 689-691 , 101 A. 553 .

1932Trego v. Skinner, 42 Md. 426, 431-433 ; Brian v. Thomas, 63 Md. 476, 480 ; Canton v. McGraw, 67 Md. 583, 590 , 11 A. 287 ; Beachey v. Heiple, 130 Md. 683, 689-691 , 101 A. 553 .

1932Trego v. Skinner, 42 Md. 426, 431-433 ; Brian v. Thomas, 63 Md. 476, 480 ; Canton v. McGraw, 67 Md. 583, 590 , 11 A. 287 ; Beachey v. Heiple, 130 Md. 683, 689-691 , 101 A. 553 .

1928Accordingly, the bill at bar for specific performance, with its prayer for the ancillary relief of a temporary and permanent injunction against the pending and further proceedings at law, was not demurrable, as was determined in Spear v. Orndorff, 26 Md. 37 .

1928Booth v. Robinson, 55 Md. 419, 441 ; Shaw v. Davis, 78 Md. 308, 319 ; Davis v. U. S. Elec.

1928Booth v. Robinson, 55 Md. 419, 441 ; Shaw v. Davis, 78 Md. 308, 319 ; Davis v. U. S. Elec.

1927That rule was stated and approved in Dumay v. Sanchez, 71 Md. 508, in the following language: “The practice in this state is well settled as to' the manner of presenting cases on appeal from rulings on summary motions to quash, or to set aside process.

1927Wo do not think the point is well taken by appellee that the action of the court cannot be reviewed because there was not a motion in arrest of judgment; and that contention is not supported by Thillman v. Neal, 88 Md. 525 , or Poe's Pleading, secs. 750, 757, cited by appellees.

1925We therefore do not feel called upon or at liberty to review what is contained in this bill of exception.” Morrow v. Morrow, 134 Md. 182, 191 ; Murphy v. State, 120 Md. 229, 234 .

1925We therefore do not feel called upon or at liberty to review what is contained in this bill of exception.” Morrow v. Morrow, 134 Md. 182, 191 ; Murphy v. State, 120 Md. 229, 234 .

1924In Tall v. Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248 , the single bill of exception embraced the rulings on several questions of evidence and on the prayer.

1922The defendant could not, therefore, have been injured by the ruling complained of. 2 Poe, Pl. & Pr., sec. 314; King v. Zell & Merceret, 105 Md. 435 .

1912Junkins v. Sullivan, 110 Md. 539 ; Baltimore & Ohio R.

1911It is said in Brook v. Winters, 39 Md. 505 , that “the rule that excludes facts because they are collateral does not apply to facts wherever existing, if they may afford any reasonable presumption as to the matter in dispute.

1906In Ricker v. Powell, 100 U. S. 107 , and in Nickle v. Stewart, 111 U. S. 776 , in both of which there was an appeal from an order refusing leave, the order was affirmed, the Court declining to decide that the appeal would lie; but in the former case, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said that before a bill of review can be filed, the decree must first be obeyed and performed, and that if it directs the payment of money, it ought to be paid before the bill of review’was filed, though it might be afterwards ordered refunded, citing Judge Story’s Equity, and Chancellor Kent in Wiser v. Blacley, 2 Johns Ch

1888Briscoe, 44 Md., 308 , and in subsequent cases, this Courtis not at liberty to review the rulings of the Court below set forth in the bill of exception found in the record before us.

1877That ruling could, properly, only be reviewed on writ of error, or a proceeding in the nature of a writ of error, as prescribed by Rule 1 for the regulation of appeals to this Court; 29 Md., 1 ; and which could not be resorted to or availed of by the party until there is a final judgment against him.