360                                       LAWS OF MARYLAND                             [Ch. 2

§18. In subsection (a), the rule established
by Art. 5, §7 (e) ("including an interlocutory
order... to the action") has been added and
made applicable to both law and equity.
Subsection (b) contains the exception now set
forth in Art. 5, §7 (e).

In view of the broad language of §12-301, the
need for a special contempt appeal provision
may be questioned. However, there is an
unusual history with respect to appeals in
contempt cases. At common law, the judgment
of the trial court in a contempt case was
conclusive and not reviewable by any other
tribunal in the absence of express statutory
authorization; Kelly v. Montebello Park Co.,
141 Md. 194 (1922). It was not until after
Kelly had been reaffirmed in Ex Parte Sturm,
152 Md. 114 (1927) that Maryland adopted the
predecessor of Art. 5, §18; see Ch. 357, Laws
of 1927. in view of this historical
situation, it is thought wise to retain an
express authority for appeals in contempt
cases.

However, the scope of review language is
proposed for deletion as unnecessary. In
Kandel v. State, 252 Md. 668 (1969), the
Court of Appeals indicated that the scope of
review in contempt cases is essentially the
same as in other cases. The scope of review

is spelled out in Rules 886 and 1086 ("...__

review the case upon both the law and the
evidence, but the judgment of the lower court
will not be set aside on the evidence unless
clearly erroneous ..."). Disposition of a
case following appeal is covered by Rules
870ff and 1070ff.

SEC. 12-305. CERTIORARI.

THE APPELLATE COURT GIVEN JURISDICTION UNDER
§12-306 SHALL REQUIRE BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI THAT A
DECISION BE CERTIFIED TO IT FOR REVIEW AND
DETERMINATION IN ANY CASE IN WHICH A FINAL JUDGMENT
HAS BEEN RENDERED BY A CIRCUIT COURT ON APPEAL FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT IF IT APPEARS TO THE APPELLATE
COURT, UPON PETITION OF A PARTY THAT:

(1) REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO SECURE UNIFORMITY OF
DECISION, AS WHERE THE SAME STATUTE HAS BEEN CONSTRUED