Case ID: md_329/html/0600-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

620 A.2d 939
    Vincent J. BECCIO v. CAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.
    No. 100,
    Sept. Term, 1992.
    Court of Appeals of Maryland.
    March 12, 1993.
    Janet D. Bacot, Arnold, Bacot, Gay & Tingle, P.A., on brief, Baltimore, for petitioner.
    Rudolph L. Rose, P.C., P. Matthew Darby, Severn E.S. Miller, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, on brief, Baltimore, for respondent.
    Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW, KARWACKI and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

For reasons stated by Judge Diana G. Motz for the Court of Special Appeals in CAM Construction v. Beccio, 92 Md.App. 452, 608 A.2d 1264 (1992), the judgment is affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.