Court Opinion

ID: 9728821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:17:06.91108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:52.315142
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.,

concurring:

I concur in the belief of the majority that once an individual has purged himself of his civil contempt that case is moot. In the cases at bar that is precisely what has taken place.
*474I point out that these cases are vastly different from those of Attorney Gen. v. A. A. Co. School Bus, 286 Md. 324, 407 A.2d 749 (1979), and Bishop v. Governor, 281 Md. 521, 380 A.2d 220 (1977), in which I dissented. I contended that the issues presented in those cases were recurring and thus should be addressed by us. In neither of those cases was there any practical way for us to correct the problem then before the Court other than by expressing ourselves in an opinion for the guidance of public officials and others concerned. Such is not the situation in these two matters. Under Maryland Constitution Art. IV, § 18 we are vested with administrative control over the courts of this State. Thus, in our administrative capacity we are in a position to take action to cope effectively with any problem which may exist in cases of this nature. In fact, it is our bounden duty to do so. We have moved to do just that. I believe such action is a much more potent curb of any abuses than is the rhetoric of an opinion addressed to a moot issue.