Coleman v. Coleman

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Parker

    334 Md. 576 (Md. 1994)   Cited 83 times
    Concluding that court-ordered cancellation of an unenforceable plea agreement was not a "practical and fair solution," given that it would not "return the parties to their original positions because [the defendant] ha[d] already provided information, testified, and served eleven years of his sentence"; ordering trial court to let defendant chose between leaving guilty plea in place or withdrawing it, with the consequences attendant to each choice

    Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399-400, 95 S.Ct. 553, 557, 42 L.Ed.2d 532, 540-41 (1975); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 713, 35 L.Ed.2d 147, 161 (1973); Mercy Hosp. v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556, 565, 510 A.2d 562, 566-67 (1986) (McAuliffe, J., dissenting). See also Attorney Gen. v. A.A. County School Bus Contractors Ass'n, 286 Md. 324, 328, 407 A.2d 749, 752 (1979); Coleman v. Coleman, 57 Md. App. 755, 758, 471 A.2d 1115, 1117 (1984). In Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 349, 46 L.Ed.2d 350, 353 (1975), the Supreme Court made clear that the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine was limited and in the absence of a class action, it was applicable only where the following two elements combined: (1) the challenged action was too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.

  2. Maryland Commission v. Downey

    110 Md. App. 493 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996)   Cited 48 times
    Finding that, "if [an] agency fails to act within an appropriate time, the party adversely affected may be entitled to pursue an action for mandamus"

    Because of our resolution of this issue, we need not consider the Commission's alternative argument that the matter is not moot because the issue is one of public importance and may recur while evading review. See State v. Parker, 334 Md. 576, 584, 640 A.2d 1104 (1994); Beeman v. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, supra, 105 Md. App. at 158, 658 A.2d 1172; C.N. Robinson Lighting Supply Co. v. Board of Education of Howard County, 90 Md. App. 515, 526, 602 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 326 Md. 662, 607 A.2d 7 (1992); Coleman v. Coleman, 57 Md. App. 755, 758, 471 A.2d 1115, cert. denied, 298 Md. 353, 469 A.2d 1274 (1984).II.

  3. Mercy Hosp. v. Jackson

    62 Md. App. 409 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    Because of the probability of repetition and the substantial likelihood that the matter will always be moot by the time it reaches an appellate court, we deem it to be in the public interest for us to answer Mercy's question. See Coleman v. Coleman, 57 Md. App. 755, 758, 471 A.2d 1115, 1117 (1984). See n. 3 supra.

  4. Matter of Wilner v. Prowda

    158 Misc. 2d 579 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    In an analogous area, the courts have consistently held that spouses or putative fathers have no interest in a fetus sufficient either to require or prevent an abortion. (See, Conn v Conn, 525 N.E.2d 612 [Ind Ct App], affd and opn below adopted 526 N.E.2d 958 [Ind], cert denied 488 U.S. 955; Coleman v Coleman, 57 Md. App. 755, 471 A.2d 1115, cert denied 298 Md. 353, 469 A.2d 1274; Doe v Doe, 365 Mass. 556, 314 N.E.2d 128; Doe v Smith, 527 N.E.2d 177 [Ind 1988]; Rothenberger v Doe, 149 N.J. Super. 478, 374 A.2d 57 [Ch Div 1977]; Jones v Smith, 278 So.2d 339 [Fla 1973], cert denied 415 U.S. 958; see also, Przybyla v Przybyla, 87 Wis.2d 441, 275 N.W.2d 112 [Ct App 1978] [woman's exercise of right to terminate her pregnancy without consent of husband cannot support recovery by husband for intentional infliction of emotional distress]; Planned Parenthood of Mo. v Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69; Planned Parenthood of S.-E. Pa. v Casey, 505 US ___, 112 S Ct 2791, 2826-2831.) This is not an abortion case and this court will not treat it as one.