| "{\"id\": \"1024343\", \"name\": \"SEA WATCH STORES et al., v. COUNCIL OF UNIT OWNERS OF SEA WATCH CONDOMINIUM\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Sea Watch Stores v. Council of Unit Owners of Sea Watch Condominium\", \"decision_date\": \"1997-11-12\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 77\", \"first_page\": \"622\", \"last_page\": \"623\", \"citations\": \"347 Md. 622\", \"volume\": \"347\", \"reporter\": \"Maryland Reports\", \"court\": \"Court of Appeals of Maryland\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Maryland\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T21:13:48.715844+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"SEA WATCH STORES et al., v. COUNCIL OF UNIT OWNERS OF SEA WATCH CONDOMINIUM.\", \"head_matter\": \"702 A.2d 260\\nSEA WATCH STORES et al., v. COUNCIL OF UNIT OWNERS OF SEA WATCH CONDOMINIUM.\\nNo. 77,\\nSept. Term, 1997.\\nCourt of Appeals of Maryland.\\nNov. 12, 1997.\\nMary T. Keating, Baltimore, for Petitioners.\\nLee H. Ogburn and Kevin F. Arthur, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, for Respondent.\\nSubmitted before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, RAKER and WILNER, JJ.\", \"word_count\": \"131\", \"char_count\": \"784\", \"text\": \"ORDER\\nThe Court having considered the respondent's motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari on the ground of mootness, it is this 12th day of November, 1997,\\nORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the motion to dismiss be, and it is hereby, denied, and it is further\\nORDERED, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.\"}" |