holding that provision which authorized Board of Estimates to “effect ‘reductions . . . in appropriations’” did not “necessarily subsume the power to modify contracts” or “clearly evidence an intention to authorize such modifications”
How later courts described this case
- holding that provision which authorized Board of Estimates to “effect ‘reductions . . . in appropriations’” did not “necessarily subsume the power to modify contracts” or “clearly evidence an intention to authorize such modifications”
- stating that “county jails are not legal entities amenable to suit”
- “To the extent the City was aware of its precaripus financial condition and of possible reductions in state aid when it enacted its budget, however, we believe that the magnitude of the reductions in state aid rendered the budgetary shortfall that gave rise to the salary reductions tantamount to a difference in kind from one the City might otherwise have anticipated”
- “Public contracts” are a “State’s own contracts[.]” (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244 (1978))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Oct. 12, 1993.
Appellees Baltimore Teachers Union, American Federation of Teachers Local 340, AFL-CIO and the City Union of Baltimore, American Federation of Teachers, Local 800, AFL-CIO have filed a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing in banc and appellants filed an answer to the petition. A member of the Court requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing in banc, and a majority of the judges voted to deny rehearing in banc. Judge MURNAGHAN voted to rehear the case in bane. Chief Judge ERVIN, Judges RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, WILKINS, NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, LUTTIG and WILLIAMS voted against rehearing in banc.
The original judicial panel voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
The Court denies the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing in banc.