1.) Harris v. State, 241 Md. 596 (1966)
Proceedings for recision and revision of judgments and sentences. The Criminal Court of Baltimore, Charles D. Harris, J., substantially denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals, Marbury, J., held that appeal from denial of petition would be dismissed, in view of the Post Conviction Procedure Act provision preclusive of reviewability, unless proceeding below was brought under Post Conviction Procedure Act.
Appeal dismissed, without prejudice.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, for appellant.
John C. Cooper, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

2.) Espin v. State, 230 Md. 298 (1962)
Prosecution on charge of robbery of a taxicab driver with a deadly weapon. From adverse judgments of the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Michael J. Manley, J., the defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
Judgments affirmed.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, for appellants.
Loring E. Howes, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell, State's Atty., and Dene L. Lusby. Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

3.) Nicholas v. Owrutsky, 230 Md. 60 (1962)
Action involving adverse claims of minor and executors of decedent to account which decedent had opened in building and loan association. The Circuit Court of Baltimore City, James K. Cullen, J., entered a decree favorable to the executors, and the minor's guardian appealed. The Court of Appeals, Brune, C. J., held that deposits by grandaunt in the account were not gifts to the minor, a grandniece, and executors were entitled to the proceeds where form of account contained certification that minor, subject to order of the decedent, held savings account in the association, and decedent held sole and executive possession of pass book until her death.
Affirmed.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore (Nicholas Gosnell, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Charles Yumkas, Baltimore (Jacob Blum, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

4.) Veney v. State, 227 Md. 608 (1962)
The defendant was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Joseph L. Carter, J., of two assaults with intent to murder in cases No. 1149 and No. 1151, of attempting to rob with a dangerous weapon in case No. 1150, and in case No. 1152 of carrying a concealed weapon and of carrying a weapon openly with the intention and purpose of injuring a certain person, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, Prescott, J., held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for carrying a weapon openly with intention of injuring a person, but that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the other convictions.
Judgments of conviction for assault with intent to murder and attempt to rob with a deadly weapon affirmed, and case remanded to strike out general verdict of guilty in case No. 1152 and to enter verdict of guilty on count charging defendant with carrying concealed weapon and not guilty on court charging him with carrying weapon openly with intention of injuring person.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, for appellant.
Lawrence F. Rodowsky, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris and John W. Sause, Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, of Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

5.) Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237 (1961)
Defendant was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Joseph R. Byrnes, J., of armed robbery, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals held that evidence warranted conviction on basis of defendant's admissions, notwithstanding alibi evidence and failure to make positive identification.
Affirmed.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, for appellant.
William J. McCarthy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., Joseph G. Koutz, Deputy State's Atty., and Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

6.) Johns v. State, 221 Md. 456 (1960)
Defendant was convicted of statutory burglary and larceny in breaking and entering storehouse and stealing items therefrom. The Criminal Court of Baltimore City, Joseph Allen, J., rendered judgment and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that record on appeal failed to reveal that trial court was clearly in error in finding defendant guilty of statutory burglary and larceny rather than of receiving stolen property.
Affirmed.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore (William I. Gosnell, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Joseph S. Kaufman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., Joseph G. Koutz, Deputy State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief, for Baltimore City.

7.) State for Use of Pitts v. Hayes, 221 Md. 308 (1960)
Action by claimant to distributive shares in intestate estates to recover against administrator and his surety. The Superior Court of Baltimore City, Michael J. Manley, J., entered judgment for cost after directing a verdict for administrator and surety, and claimant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Henderson, J., held that where claimant was allegedly the adopted daughter of deceased who also had a son and deceased died and then his wife and son died and none of the estates were probated until several years later when letters of administration were taken out on all three estates and only in the case of last distribution in deceased son's estate did administrator give notice to distributees as authorized by code, administrator could not claim that he was protected because the money involved in deceased's estate and his wife's estate was the same as involved in deceased son's estate.
Reversed and remanded.
David Kimmelman, Baltimore, for appellant.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore (Solomon Baylor, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

8.) Ryan v. Johnson, 220 Md. 70 (1959)
Suit in assumpsit. The Circuit Court for Carroll County, James E. Boylan, C. J., deciding that defendant had no meritorious defense, refused to grant defendant's motion to strike out default judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Brune, C. J., held that it would be valid and meritorious defense that plaintiff's payment of defendant's bills had constituted gifts.
Judgment reversed and case remanded with directions.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore (Nicholas & Gosnell, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Edward L. Putzel, Baltimore, for appellee.

9.) Elliott v. State, 215 Md. 152 (1957)
Prosecution for murder wherein defendant stated that he watched deceased from door of his aunt's house, and, after getting shotgun and loading it, he resumed watching deceased come across two streets, and into range of shotgun whereupon he stood in front of doorway, took aim and fired. From adverse judgment of the Criminal Court of Baltimore, John T. Tucker and James K. Cullen, JJ., the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Horney, J., held that evidence was sufficient to sustain finding that defendant had an actual intent to kill, he had fully formed a purpose to kill, and that he had enough time to deliberate and premediate the killing, and to sustain a conviction for murder in the first degree.
Judgment affirmed.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, for appellant.
Theodore C. Waters, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., J. Harold Grady, State's Atty. and James F. Price, Exec. Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

10.) In re Harris, 200 Md. 300 (1952)
Proceedings in the matter of the custody of Jo Ann Harris, a minor, by Josephine Barton Harris for change of custody to herself from Morris D. Frye and Mary E. Frye, his wife. The Circuit Court, for Carroll County, James E. Boylan, Jr., J., entered decree adverse to Josephine Barton Harris, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals, Collins, J., held that record sustained conclusion of chancellor that best interests of child did not warrant change of custody.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, and Donald C. Sponseller, Westminster, for appellant.
E. O. Weant, Jr., Westminster (A. Earl Shipley, Westminster, on the brief), for appellees.

11.) Evans v. Shiloh Baptist Church, 196 Md. 543 (1950)
Reverend William L. Evans and others brought suit against The Shiloh Baptist Church, Inc., also known as Shiloh Baptist Church, Inc., also known as New Shiloh Baptist Church of Baltimore, a body corporate, and others to have the named plaintiff restored to his position as assistant pastor, to have the plaintiffs removed from status of 'under discipline,' to have one of the plaintiffs restored to his position as secretary of the trustee board, and to have a meeting of the entire membership of the named defendant at which there should be made a complete report and accounting. The Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, Emory H. Niles, J., rendered an order adverse to the plaintiffs and they appealed, and the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal of certain of plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals, Markell, J., held that placing of plaintiffs 'under discipline' was an ecclesiastical matter which courts would not review.
Affirmed.
Dallas F. Nicholas and U. Theodore Hayes, Baltimore, (Nicholas & Gosnell, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
Harry O. Levin and Marshall A. Levin, Baltimore, for appellees.

12.) Hammond v. Lancaster, 194 Md. 462 (1950)
H. Carrington Lancaster and others brought suit against Hall Hammond, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and others, challenging the constitutionality of the Subversive Activities Act and the emergency act re-enacting section three of the Subversive Activities Act and declaring it an emergency measure, and to enjoin defendants from enforcing any of the provisions of the acts.
The Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, Joseph Sherbow, J., rendered a decree for the complainants, and the defendants appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Henderson, J., held that questions relating to validity of the Emergency Act were properly before the Court, that the Emergency Act did not violate the referendum amendment, and that none of the complainants had any standing to maintain suit to have certain provisions of the Subversive Activities Act and Emergency Act declared unconstitutional.
Decree reversed and bill dismissed.
Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., J. Edgar Harvey, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Frank B. Ober, Baltimore (Thomas N. Biddison, City Solicitor, Leroy W. Preston, Asst. City Solicitor, and Hugo A. Ricciuti, Asst. City Solicitor, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
I. Duke Avnet and Linwood G. Koger, Baltimore (Mitchell A. Dubow, Donald G. Murray, Robert P. McGuinn and Bernard Rosen, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Frank B. Ober, Baltimore, for John W. Avirett, 2d, et al., former members of the Commission Subversive Activities.
William F. McDonald, Baltimore, and James A. Perrott, Baltimore, on the brief, amici curiae, for Maryland Committee Against Unamerican Activities.
Harold Buchman, Baltimore, on the brief, amici curiae for National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, CIO.
David Rein, Washington, D. C., Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, and Robert J. Silberstein, Washington, D. C., on the brief, amici curiae for National Lawyers Guild.
Arnold H. Seixas, New York City, Thurgood Marshall, New York City, and Robert L. Carter, Washington, D. C., on the brief, amici curiae for National Association for Advancement of Colored People.
Jacob J. Edelman and Marshall A. Levin, Baltimore, on the brief, amici curiae for Baltimore Federation of Labor and Baltimore Teachers Union, Local 340.
Eugene M. Feinblatt, Donald N. Rothman, Baltimore, on the brief, amici curiae for Americans for Democratic Action.
Joseph I. Paper and Joseph Burke, Baltimore, on the brief, amici curiae for Md. Civil Liberties Committee, Inc.
Isador B. Terrell, Baltimore, on the brief, amicus curiae for American Assoc. of Social Workers, Md. Chapter.
William H. Murphy, Baltimore, on the brief, amicus curiae for National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions.
Lee Pressman, New York City, on the brief, amicus curiae for International Workers Order.
Harold Buchman, Baltimore, James Stewart Martin, Annapolis, and John J. Abt, New York City, on the brief, amici curiae for Progressive Party of Maryland.
Nathan Witt, New York City, amicus curiae for Food, Tobacco, etc. Workers Union, et al.
Hilary W. Gans, Baltimore, on the brief, amicus curiae for John Hopkins University Chap., Amer. Assoc. University Professors.
David Scribner and Basil R. Pollitt, New York City, on the brief, amici curiae for United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America.
Maurice Braverman, Baltimore, on the brief, amicus curiae for Communist Party of Maryland.
Ely Albert Castleman, Baltimore, on the brief, amicus curiae for Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance.

13.) Williams v. Robinson, 183 Md. 117 (1944)
Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; W. Conwell Smith, Judge.
Suit by Stephen Robinson against Lottie R. Williams to annul two deeds. From an adverse decree, defendant appeals.
Decree reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Dallas F. Nicholas, of Baltimore (Nicholas & Gosnell, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
W. A. C. Hughes, Jr., of Baltimore, for appellee.

14.) Durkee v. Murphy, 181 Md. 259 (1942)
Appeals from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Eugene O'Dunne, Judge.
Action by D. Arnett Murphy against Frank H. Durkee and others, constituting the Board of Park Commissioners of Baltimore City, Md., and others, for a writ of mandamus to remove restriction segregating negro golf players on one of the four courses maintained by defendant city in its public parks and to admit plaintiff, a negro, to the other courses. From order for issuance of writ of mandamus entered upon verdict of the jury and from an order refusing to fix penalty on the appeal bond offered in order to stay execution and from the writ issued in accordance with the court's order, defendants appeal.
Orders appealed from in first two appeals reversed with costs and new trial awarded and appeal from writ issued dismissed.
Wilson K. Barnes, Deputy City Sol., and J. Gilbert Prendergast, Asst. City Sol., both of Baltimore (F. Murray Benson, City Sol., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants in all three cases.
Jesse Slingluff, Jr., of Baltimore, on the brief, for Maryland Committee of American Civil Liberties Union.
Dallas F. Nicholas and Robert P. McGuinn, both of Baltimore (Nicholas & Gosnell, of Baltimore, Md., and Charles H. Houston, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee in all three cases.

15.) Boyer v. Garrett, 183 F.2d 582 (1950)
Action by Philip Boyer, and others, against Robert Garrett, and others, to recover damages and enjoin defendants, as members of the Board of Recreation and Parks of the City of Baltimore, and others, from enforcing a rule providing for the segregation of the races in athletic activities in public parks and playgrounds subject to the control of the Board. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore, W. Calvin Chesnut, J., rendered a decision, 88 F.Supp. 353, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Per Curiam, held that the rule did not violate amendments to the Federal Constitution.
Affirmed.
Dallas F. Nicholas and I. Duke Avnet, Baltimore, Md. (Edgar Paul Boyko and William H. Murphy, Baltimore, Md., on brief) for appellants.
Allen A. Davis, Baltimore, Md. (Thomas N. Biddison and Hugo A. Ricciuti, Baltimore, Md., on brief) for appellees.

16.) The YFNX-6, 156 F.Supp. 325 (1957)
Proceeding by United States, as owner of Navy barge, which sank in Delaware Bay, for exoneration from or limitation of liability in respect to claims arising out of the sinking, eight days later, of fishing vessel which struck unseen object in Delaware Bay. The District Court, Thomsen, Chief Judge, held that even through loss of Navy barge was caused by negligence on part of Government's tug in towing barge at too great a speed, where there was no other negligence on the part of the Government either in sending out the barge or in permitting the escape of debris from the wreck, and the peculiar damage to hull of fishing vessel was not caused by anything that came off the barge, the Government was entitled to exoneration from liability.
Decree exonerating the United States from liability.
Leon H. A. Pierson, U.S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Charles S. Haight, Jr., Atty., Admiralty & Shipping Section, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for petitioner.
Skeen, Wilson & Coughlin, Baltimore, Md., Rollins, Smalkin, Weston & Andrew, Josiah F. Henry, Jr., Dallas F. Nicholas, and Harry K. Lott, Baltimore, Md. (John H. Skeen, Jr., Baltimore, Md., of counsel), for claimants.

17.) Boyer v. Garrett, 88 F.Supp. 353 (1949)
Phillip Boyer and others sued Robert Garrett and others to recover damages and to enjoin defendants as members of the Board of Recreation of the City of Baltimore and others from enforcing a rule or practice providing for the segregation of the races in athletic activities, including the sports of golf, basketball, and tennis, in the public parks and places subject to the control of the board.
Defendants moved for summary judgment.
The District Court, Chesnut, J., held that the requirements of the board with respect to the segregation did not deprive plaintiffs or interfere with their constitutional rights within the meaning of the federal statute creating a cause of action for deprivation of such rights.
Motion granted.
I. Duke Avnet, Baltimore, Md., Edgar Paul Boyko, William H. Murphy, Dallas F. Nicholas, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs.
Thomas N. Biddison, City Sol., Allen A. Davis, John J. Ghingher, Jr., Hugo A. Ricciutti, Asst. City Sols., Baltimore, Md., for Mayor & City Council of Baltimore and Board of Recreation and Parks.
John Henry Lewin, Baltimore, Md. (Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md.), for certain members of the Board sued individually.