Court Opinion

ID: 9750564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:07:26.060978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:12.718319
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse. In Thomas v. Police Commissioner, 211 Md. 357, 127 A.2d 625 (1956), Judge Hammond said for the Court:
“It is a hornbook rule of statutory construction that, in ascertaining the intention of the Legislature, all parts of a statute are to be read together to find the intention as to any one part and that all parts are to be reconciled and *369harmonized if possible. Bickel v. Nice, 173 Md. 1, 6[, 192 A. 777, 780 (1937) ]; Baltimore v. Deegan, 163 Md. 234, 238[, 161 A. 282, 283 (1932) ]; Pittman v. Housing Authority, 180 Md. 457, 463[, 25 A.2d 466, 469 (1942)]; Maguire v. State, 192 Md. 615, 623[, 65 A.2d 299, 302 (1949) ]; Frazier v. Warfield, 13 Md. 279, 301 [ (1859) ]. A corollary rule of construction is that if there is no clear indication to the contrary and it is reasonably possible, a statute is to be read so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase shall be rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory. This was stated negatively in Pressman v. State Tax Commission, 204 Md. 78[, 102 A.2d 821 (1954) ], where it was noted that words in a statute may be rejected as surplusage if they are incapable of any sensible meaning or are repugnant to the rest of the statute and tend to nullify it.” 211 Md. at 361, 127 A.2d at 627.
Judge Hammond put it somewhat differently in St. Joseph Hospital v. Quinn, 241 Md. 371, 379, 216 A.2d 732, 736 (1966), when he observed for the Court, “that all parts [of a statute] must have been intended to have meaning and to result in an operative statute. Dept. of Tide. Fisheries v. Sollers, 201 Md. 603, 611[, 95 A.2d 306, 309 (1953)].”
Numerous cases have expressed a similar view. See, e.g., Management Personnel Serv. v. Sandefur, 300 Md. 332, 341, 478 A.2d 310, 315 (1984); City of Baltimore v. Hackley, 300 Md. 277, 283, 477 A.2d 1174, 1177 (1984); Board of Educ., Garrett Co. v. Lendo, 295 Md. 55, 63, 453 A.2d 1185, 1189 (1982); Smelser v. Criterion Ins. Co., 293 Md. 384, 389, 444 A.2d 1024, 1027 (1982); Rome v. Lowenthal, 290 Md. 33, 41, 428 A.2d 75, 79 (1981); Police Comm’r v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412, 419, 379 A.2d 1007, 1011 (1977); Prince George’s Co. v. White, 275 Md. 314, 319, 340 A.2d 236, 239-40 (1975); St. Paul Fire & Mar. v. Ins. Comm’r, 275 Md. 130, 142, 339 A.2d 291, 297-98 (1975); A.H. Smith Sand & Gravel v. Dep’t, 270 Md. 652, 659, 313 A.2d 820, 824 (1974); Baltimore City v. United Stores, 250 Md. 361, 368-69, 243 A.2d 521, 524-25 (1968).
*370When the General Assembly amended Maryland Code (1974) § 3-2A-06, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, by Chapter 156 of the Acts of 1979, it was by insertion of the words “director and the” immediately before “arbitration panel” in the statute which read, prior to amendment, “A notice of rejection must be filed with the arbitration panel ....” The holding of the Court today renders the words “and the arbitration panel” meaningless and nugatory.
I am authorized to state that Judges ELDRIDGE and COUCH concur in the views here expressed.