C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...

include the circuit court docket entries. Ms. Gradet explained
that when a case in the Court of Special Appeals is assigned to a
three-judge panel, only one of the judges receives the actual
record. The other two judges receive only the record extract.
Including the docket entries of the circuit court would add to
the overview of the case for those two judges.
Ms. Gradet also pointed out that in 1993, the last sentence
of section (c) was added. Before this change, attorneys were
fearful that they might be penalized for leaving something out of
the record extract and tended to put too many items in it. The
new language was intended to let attorneys know that they would
not necessarily be penalized if they inadvertently left something
out of the record extract. However, some attorneys are
interpreting the last sentence to mean that they need not be
concerned about the contents of the record extract and can simply
cite to the record or transcript pursuant to Rule 8-503 (b). In
some cases, substantial portions of the record that should have
been included in the record extract are omitted entirely.
To address this problem, the Committee recommends several
amendments to Rule 8-501, as well as a related amendment to Rule
8-503 (b). The last sentence of Rule 8-501 (c) is proposed to be
amended so that a party no longer is entitled to rely on material
that is in the record but not in the record extract. As amended,
the sentence allows, but does not require, the appellate court to
consider such material. This change is counterbalanced by the
proposed addition of the phrase “or an appendix to a brief” to
the last sentence of section (c) and a new first sentence of
section (j) that allows a party to include in an appendix to a
brief, including a reply brief, any material that inadvertently
was omitted from the record extract. An additional change to the
Rule moves the second sentence of section (d) to section (c),
deletes as inapplicable the language that states that the parties
should have regard for the fact that the entire record is always
available to the appellate court for reference and examination,
and makes the stylistic change of substituting the phrase
“refrain from” for the phrase “not engage in.”
-251