# DRD Pool Service, Inc. v. Freed

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · September 24, 2010 · 416 Md. 46

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774096

## Case

- **Full name:** DRD POOL SERVICE, INC. v. Thomas FREED, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** September 24, 2010
- **Citations:** 416 Md. 46; 5 A.3d 45; 2010 Md. LEXIS 530
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Murphy
- **Judges:** Greene, Murphy
- **Cited by:** 37 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/9774096

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992) “expressly rejected [the] constitutional argument!]” that the Cap "infringes upon [the] right to a jury trial ... and we reaffirm that decision today”
- describing stare decisis as meaning “to stand by the thing decided,” and that it is “the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and …
- holding that the cap "does not create a classification between affected parties, and certainly not a classification subject to heightened scrutiny"

## Opinion text

MURPHY, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree that the Respondents’ evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the deceased suffered conscious pain and suffering. I dissent, however, from the majority’s refusal to require that the Cap be subjected to a “heightened scrutiny” analysis. For the reasons stated by Judge Chasanow in Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 378-85 , 601 A.2d 102, 120-123 (1992) (Chasanow, J., dissenting), I would vacate the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and direct that the Circuit Court conduct further proceedings at which it shall apply the heightened scrutiny test to determine whether the Cap violates the equal protection guarantee embodied in Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774096. Public record. Not legal advice.