# Marsheck v. Board of Trustees

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · April 12, 2000 · 358 Md. 393

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9715034

## Case

- **Full name:** Charlotte MARSHECK v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the FIRE & POLICE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF the CITY OF BALTIMORE
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** April 12, 2000
- **Citations:** 358 Md. 393; 749 A.2d 774; 2000 Md. LEXIS 175
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eldridge
- **Judges:** Harrell
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9715034

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- noting that the meaning of the word “injury” in a retirement benefits statute is “a solely legal issue”

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9715034. Public record. Not legal advice.