stating that the appellate court’s “interpretation of [a] statute and the legislature’s intent must be examined by looking to the statutory scheme in its entirety rather than segmenting the statute and analyzing only its individual parts”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the appellate court’s “interpretation of [a] statute and the legislature’s intent must be examined by looking to the statutory scheme in its entirety rather than segmenting the statute and analyzing only its individual parts”
- stating that by “closing a window” on bringing a claim, “the statute of limitations grants repose to potential defendants”
- observing that a retirement system is remedial legislation, and, as such, “must be construed liberally in favor of injured employees in order to effectuate the legislation’s remedial purpose”
- interpreting the Baltimore City Code and explaining that the Court need not look beyond the text when the words used are plain and unambiguous
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*417 ELDRIDGE, 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.