Court Opinion

ID: 9711659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:36:10.027928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:35.146125
License: Public Domain

Murphy, C. J.,

dissenting:

I agree with the Court that the issue in this case turns on the proper construction of § 8-337.1 do not, however, agree with the majority that that section permits the Vallarios to accept the full amount of the award and to thereafter appeal, challenging only the necessity for the taking, rather than the fairness of the amount of the award. The Court of Special Appeals, speaking through Judge Moore, construed § 8-337, I think properly, to mean that the property owner may withdraw any money that the Commission paid into Court prior to the jury’s inquisition, so long as he agrees to return any excess over the final award allowed by the jury. I think Shapiro v. Md.-Nat. Park Comm., 235 Md. 420, 424, 201 A.2d 804 (1964) plainly supports this construction of the statute and I therefore conclude that the appeal was properly dismissed by the Court of Special Appeals.