appeal or writ error in Maryland

2009“But if a judgment is entered upon the verdict, no release, or other act of the plaintiff, can give validity to that judgment, but on an appeal or writ of error, it must be reversed... . ” Id. *280 Falcinelli, 339 Md. at 427-28 , 663 A.2d 1256 (quoting Harris, 3 H. & J. at 546-47 ).

1995“But if a judgment is entered upon the verdict, no release, or other act of the plaintiff, tan give validity to that judgment, but on an appeal or writ of error, it must be reversed....” Id. 7 Chapter 161 of the Acts of 1811, passed January 4, 1812, changed the procedure from the rule applied in Harris v. Jaffray.

2005This Court’s first discussion of this issue in a reported opinion was in Queen v. The State, 5 H. & J. 232 (June Term 1821), in which we held that an appeal or writ of error was authorized in a criminal case to review a question of law apparent on the record even though a bill of exceptions was not authorized.

1994The first discussion of the issue in a reported opinion by this Court was in Queen v. The State, 5 H. & J. 232 (June Term 1821), where the Court held that an appeal or writ of error was authorized in a criminal case to review a question of law apparent on the record but that a bill of exceptions was not authorized.

2001As that is thoroughly established in this State, it would of itself be sufficient reason for refusing to grant a writ of certiorari to test the question of jurisdiction, as appeals or writs of error are the usual methods of bringing cases before this Court for review, and nothing could be accomplished in such cases by writs of certiorari, which could not be by one of those methods." Hendrick v. State, 115 Md. 552, 557 , 81 A. 18, 19 .

2001As that is thoroughly established in this State, it would of itself be sufficient reason for refusing to grant a writ of certiorari to test the question of jurisdiction, as appeals or writs of error are the usual methods of bringing cases before this Court for review, and nothing could be accomplished in such cases by writs of certiorari, which could not be by one of those methods." Hendrick v. State, 115 Md. 552, 557 , 81 A. 18, 19 .

1994In Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368 (1879), Judge Alvey said for the Court: It is only where the Circuit Court has proceeded without right or jurisdiction to hear and decide the case that an appeal or writ of error may be taken to this court to reverse the judgment thus unwarrantably rendered.

1994In Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368 (1879), Judge Alvey said for the Court: It is only where the Circuit Court has proceeded without right or jurisdiction to hear and decide the case that an appeal or writ of error may be taken to this court to reverse the judgment thus unwarrantably rendered.

2009“But if a judgment is entered upon the verdict, no release, or other act of the plaintiff, can give validity to that judgment, but on an appeal or writ of error, it must be reversed... . ” Id. *280 Falcinelli, 339 Md. at 427-28 , 663 A.2d 1256 (quoting Harris, 3 H. & J. at 546-47 ).

2009“But if a judgment is entered upon the verdict, no release, or other act of the plaintiff, can give validity to that judgment, but on an appeal or writ of error, it must be reversed... . ” Id. *280 Falcinelli, 339 Md. at 427-28 , 663 A.2d 1256 (quoting Harris, 3 H. & J. at 546-47 ).

2009“But if a judgment is entered upon the verdict, no release, or other act of the plaintiff, can give validity to that judgment, but on an appeal or writ of error, it must be reversed... . ” Id. *280 Falcinelli, 339 Md. at 427-28 , 663 A.2d 1256 (quoting Harris, 3 H. & J. at 546-47 ).

1965That law was changed by this Court, because of the reversal of our decision by the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488 (1961).

1944Rule 25, Section 1 of this Court, provides: “In criminal cases an appeal or writ of error allowed by law shall be taken within ten days from the date of the judgment or sentence.” Ivrey v. State, 178 Md. 638 , 15 A. 2d 910 ; Feldstein v. State, 181 Md. 662 , 28 A. 2d 471 .

1944Rule 25, Section 1 of this Court, provides: “In criminal cases an appeal or writ of error allowed by law shall be taken within ten days from the date of the judgment or sentence.” Ivrey v. State, 178 Md. 638 , 15 A. 2d 910 ; Feldstein v. State, 181 Md. 662 , 28 A. 2d 471 .

1944Rule 25, Section 1 of this Court, provides: “In criminal cases an appeal or writ of error allowed by law shall be taken within ten days from the date of the judgment or sentence.” Ivrey v. State, 178 Md. 638 , 15 A. 2d 910 ; Feldstein v. State, 181 Md. 662 , 28 A. 2d 471 .

1944Rule 25, Section 1 of this Court, provides: “In criminal cases an appeal or writ of error allowed by law shall be taken within ten days from the date of the judgment or sentence.” Ivrey v. State, 178 Md. 638 , 15 A. 2d 910 ; Feldstein v. State, 181 Md. 662 , 28 A. 2d 471 .

1936In Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368 , it was said: “It is only where the Circuit Court has proceeded without right or jurisdiction to hear and decide the case that an appeal or writ of error may be taken to this Court to reverse the judgment thus unwarrantably rendered,” but “having invoked that jurisdiction and submitted himself to it, and the case having been regularly tried, he has no redress by an appeal or writ of error to this Court.” Queen, v. State, 116 Md. 678, 680 , 82 A. 656 .

1887Bowers, 65 Md., 363 , the writ of error was sued out twenty-one days after-judgment rendered, and this Court said the same was not sued out without delay as provided by the rule and the writ was'dismissed.

1858It has frequently been recognized in admiralty causes, where property was seized and condemned* on the ground that the repeal of the law before the decision in the court above removed the penalty, and that the court in disposing of the appeal or writ of error, must decide according to existing laws at the time of the final judgment. 1 Cranch, 103 . 5 Cranch, 281 , 6 Cranch, 203 . 3 Peters, 57.

1858It has frequently been recognized in admiralty causes, where property was seized and condemned* on the ground that the repeal of the law before the decision in the court above removed the penalty, and that the court in disposing of the appeal or writ of error, must decide according to existing laws at the time of the final judgment. 1 Cranch, 103 . 5 Cranch, 281 , 6 Cranch, 203 . 3 Peters, 57.

1858It has frequently been recognized in admiralty causes, where property was seized and condemned* on the ground that the repeal of the law before the decision in the court above removed the penalty, and that the court in disposing of the appeal or writ of error, must decide according to existing laws at the time of the final judgment. 1 Cranch, 103 . 5 Cranch, 281 , 6 Cranch, 203 . 3 Peters, 57.

1858It has frequently been recognized in admiralty causes, where property was seized and condemned* on the ground that the repeal of the law before the decision in the court above removed the penalty, and that the court in disposing of the appeal or writ of error, must decide according to existing laws at the time of the final judgment. 1 Cranch, 103 . 5 Cranch, 281 , 6 Cranch, 203 . 3 Peters, 57.