Court Opinion

ID: 9715034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:52:29.964263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:30.779162
License: Public Domain

*417ELDRIDGE, Judge,
dissenting:
For the reasons urged by the petitioner and outlined at the beginning of Part I of the majority’s opinion, the Court’s interpretation of the Baltimore City statute is harsh and makes no sense as a matter of public policy. The majority’s interpretation violates the settled principle that courts should adopt “ ‘that construction [of a statute] which avoids an illogical or unreasonable result,’ ” Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513, 525 A.2d 628, 632 (1987), quoting Tucker v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 308 Md. 69, 75, 517 A.2d 730, 732 (1986). I would reverse.