Maryland v. Kanaras

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a sentence was not illegal when the Parole Commission’s actions had the effect of denying the inmate parole consideration to which he was statutorily entitled because the illegality was in the Parole Commission’s conduct, not in the sentence
• observing that it is “doubtful” that the Court’s “rule-making authority would extend to the creation of a separate cause of action”
• overruling a line of cases, decided over a 40-year period, which had misconstrued a statute so as to preclude appeals in actions to correct illegal sentences
• “[Rule 4-345] simply grants the trial court limited continuing authority in the criminal case to revise the sentence.” (emphasis added)
• “[Rule 4-345] simply grants the trial court limited continuing authority in the criminal case to revise the sentence.” (emphasis added)
• Overrules five prior decisions which had misinterpreted the Postconviction Procedure Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).