Certified Questions of Law Currently Before the Court of Appeals
September Term, 2015
For further information, please contact the Clerk's Office at 410-260-1500.
Dennis Merchant v. State of Maryland - Misc. No. 16, September Term, 2015
Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals.
Questions - 1) Did the circuit court err in determining that the statutory scheme, set forth in Crim.Proc. §§ 3-114, et seq., for the granting and/or revocation of the conditional release of a committed person violates the separation of powers provision found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and is thus void as unconstitutional? 2) Did the circuit court err in revoking Merchant's conditional release and ordering his continued commitment for institutional inpatient care and treatment after the ALJ had found that Merchant was eligible for conditional release and had recommended the same?
To be argued in the March, 2016 session of Court.
Counsel for appellant: Brian M. Saccenti and Tamara D. Sanders
Counsel for appellee: Brian S. Kleinbord
Edward J. and Vicki Fangman, et al. v. Genuine Title, LLC., et al. - Misc. No. 19, September Term, 2015
Certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Question - Does Md. Code. Ann., Real Prop., § 14-127 imply a private right of action?
To be argued in the April, 2016 session of Court.
Counsel for appellant: Michael Paul Smith
Counsel for appellee: Ari Karen
Patriot Electric and Mechanical v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company - Misc. No. 2, September Term, 2014
Certified Question from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland
Questions - 1) Is a financing statement that does not contain the debtor's correct name and is not discoverable by searching for the debtor's correct name within the filing office records by utilizing the Search Logic promulgated by SDAT, but is otherwise discoverable if a searcher of the filing office records submits the correct beginning of the debtor's name utilizing the Search Logic, seriously misleading within the meaning of Sections 9-502(a)(1), 9-503(a)(1) and 9-506 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Commercial Law Article? 2) How should the Search Logic instruction that requires a searcher to enter "as much or as little of the [debtor's] name [as the searcher] is certain of" be construed in the case of Section 544(a)'s hypthetical lien creditor who is statutorily mandated to be "without knowledge"?
Counsel for appellant: Ronald Drescher
Counsel for appellee: Richard A. DuBose, III