|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.B. 356
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) If a violation results in the death of an individual, a person who
violates subsection (b) or (c) of this section is guilty of a felony and, on conviction, is
subject to a fine of not more than $200,000 or imprisonment for not more than life or
both.
(e) Unless a greater fine is authorized under this section, a person that is. not
an individual and that violates subsection (b) or (c) of this section is subject to a fine
of not more than:
(1) $100,000 for each misdemeanor; and
(2) $250,000 for each felony.
(f) A person who violates subsection (b) or (c) of this section may be required
to make full restitution of the money, or the value of the health care services or other
goods or services unlawfully received.]
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
October 1, 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 17, 2000
The Honorable Casper R. Taylor, Jr.
Speaker of the House
State House
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, I have today
vetoed House Bill 356 - District Court - Civil Jurisdiction - Dishonored Checks and
Other Instruments.
House Bill 356 provides that the District Court of Maryland has exclusive original
civil jurisdiction in an action for damages for a dishonored check or other instrument
regardless of the amount in controversy.
Currently, the District Court of Maryland has exclusive original civil jurisdiction in
an action for damages that does not exceed $25,000. The established jurisdictional
amounts for our court system are designed to carefully balance the cases considered
by the District Court and Circuit Courts in order to protect the rights of the
individuals involved in legal actions. Any disruption of this balance created by an
exception to the established jurisdictional amount in controversy should be
thoroughly supported by substantial evidence that such an exception is warranted.
House Bill 356 does not provide the compelling evidence necessary to alter the current
law.
For the reasons stated above, I have vetoed House Bill 356.
Sincerely,
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 4434 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
