Maryland Courts

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).

Click on the column title to sort by that column.

Case No. Year Petitioner Respondent Cert. Granted Oral Arguments Opinion Filed Issues
015 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Woolery   2017-09-06
[Oral Arguments]

2017-12-15
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter.

003
2017 U. of MD Med. System Kerrigan 2017-03-27 2017-09-06
[Oral Arguments]
2017-11-28
[Opinion]

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA substitute its judgment and fail to defer to the wide discretion owed to the trial court’s reasoning in support of transfer? 2) Did CSA fail to review this case on its individual merits by placing too much reliance upon Scott v. Hawit, 211 Md.App. 620 (2013), a decision with different facts? 3) Did CSA err by holding that the residence of foreign plaintiffs should not factor into the convenience of the parties analysis under Md. Rule 2-327(c)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1710, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

001
2017 Sizer State 2017-03-03 2017-09-06
[Oral Arguments]
2017-11-28
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Where the police make an illegal stop of a person, discover a valid, pre-existing arrest warrant, and seize evidence from the person during a search incident to arrest, must the admissibility of that evidence be determined based on an application of the “attenuation factors,” as held in Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), Cox v. State, 397 Md. 200 (2007), and Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261 (2006), or may a court, as CSA did in this case, reject the attenuation doctrine and find that such evidence will always be admissible because the arrest warrant constitutes an “independent source”? 2) Did the hearing judge correctly rule that the discovery of a valid pre-existing arrest warrant did not attenuate the connection between the illegal stop of Petitioner and the evidence seized from him shortly thereafter? 3) Where a person is under no obligation to interact with the police, does flight to avoid that interaction, by itself, justify a Terry stop; and if so, does it still justify the stop where there is evidence that flight was provoked by the threatening or startling actions of the police officers? 4) Did the hearing judge correctly rule that police violated Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights where the only observation officers made regarding Petitioner before tackling him was that he immediately ran upon noticing the six bicycle-riding police officers riding towards him?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 784, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

014 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Butler   2017-09-07
[Oral Arguments]

2017-10-23
[Opinion]

2017-09-07
[PC Order]

Attorney disciplinary matter.

005
2017 In Re: J.J. and T.S.   2017-04-04 2017-09-07
[Oral Arguments]
2017-11-28
[Opinion]

Family Law – 1) Under Criminal Procedure § 11-304, Maryland’s tender years statute, in a CINA case, where a child victim does not testify and the court declines to examine the child in chambers, must the court find that the child is competent before admitting her audiotaped ex parte statement into evidence at an adjudication hearing for the truth of the matter asserted therein? 2) Did the facts in this case establish that the child victim was competent, where the child did not testify in court and the court did not examine the child because it found that the audio recording of the child’s statement made an examination of the child unnecessary, although the audio recording contained no indication that the child was aware of the difference between the truth and a lie, and the child previously had fabricated an allegation of sexual abuse? 3) Did J.J.’s hearsay statement have particularized guarantees of trustworthiness to be allowed into evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2631, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

007
2017 Monarch Academy Bd. of School Comm'rs 2017-04-04 2017-09-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

Administrative Law – 1) Is a trial court’s issuance of an indefinite stay of plaintiffs’ action, requiring “administrative review of the parties’ dispute,” an appealable order where it imposes a condition that (a) is beyond the control of the plaintiffs to satisfy and (b) requires that plaintiffs undertake actions that even if satisfied would substantively impair plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural rights? 2) Did the trial court err in determining that the State Board of Education has “primary jurisdiction” over the Charter School Operators’ contract actions and, as a consequence, staying the proceedings “pending administrative review of the parties’ dispute by the State Board of Education?” 3) If Question (2) is answered in the negative, then what process is available to plaintiffs both at the State Board and then in court that would permit their claims to be fully heard and adjudicated, with relief granted, and that would not deprive Petitioners of their substantive rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 404, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

038 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Moody   2017-09-12
[Oral Arguments]

2017-09-12
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.

001 Misc.
2017 Brownlee Liberty Mutual Fire Ins.   2017-09-12
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Would application of Georgia's interpretation of the pollution exclusion contained in the insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to the Salvation Army as excluding coverage for bodily nijuries resulting form the ingestion of lead-based paint violate Maryland public policy?
006
2017 Johnson State 2017-04-04 2017-09-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does CSA’s opinion in Gross v. State, 229 Md.App. 24 (2016), holding that expert testimony is not necessary for the admission of GPS-derived location evidence, conflict with this Court’s opinion in State v. Payne, 440 Md. 680 (2014)? 2) As applied in this case, did the trial court err under Payne in permitting a State’s witness to read a cell phone’s GPS location record to the jury and permitting that witness to interpret those records, when the witness admitted that he did not understand how the technology worked or how it produced the record at issue? 3) Was this question properly preserved for appellate review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1533, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

019
2017 State Simms 2017-06-21 2017-10-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the State have the authority to enter a nolle prosequi on a charge after a conviction? 2) If the State does have the authority to do so, was Respondent’s appeal moot because the State entered a nolle prosequi in the circuit court as to the entire case, without objection?

Court of Special Appals, No. 1942, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

012
2017 Davis Frostburg Facility Ops. 2017-05-09 2017-10-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was required to file in the Md. Healthcare Alternative Dispute Resolution Office so that office could make the initial determination of whether Petitioner’s injuries were the result of ordinary negligence or medical negligence? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioners’ complaint was not sufficient on its face to survive the granting of a motion to dismiss on the remaining counts?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 540, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

010
2017 Santiago State 2017-05-09 2017-10-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court properly admitted testimony from the State’s cellular communication expert when the expert admitted his opinion was based on a critical assumption the factual underpinning of which was not established and a report that was destroyed before trial? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of Petitioner’s silence during an investigation by his automobile insurer that was related to and concurrent with the police investigation in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1694, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

003 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Smith   2017-10-06
[Oral Arguments]

  Attorney disciplinary matter.

008
2017 Young Electrical Dustin Construction 2017-04-04 2017-10-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Contract Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a “flow down” provision in the subcontract between the prime contractor and a subcontractor created a right for the subcontractor to sue the Owner? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the denial of Petitioner’s claim was a Final Decision to trigger the dispute resolution process in the general contract? 3) Did CSA err in not considering Respondent’s alleged breach of the subcontract by preventing the contractor from pursuing its claims through the Prime Contract, the Prevention Doctrine? 4) Did CSA err in relying upon a “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract that Respondent did not raise in its Motion for Summary Judgment and that neither party raised in argument before the trial court? 5) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment prior to any discovery and factual determination regarding the cause of the delays to the project?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 226, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

011
2017 Lopez State 2017-05-09

2017-10-06
[Oral Arguments]

 

Criminal Procedure – Is a music video/slide show depicting the lives of the victims a permissible form of victim impact evidence, and does its admission violate a criminal defendant’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1887, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

015
2017 People's Counsel Public Service Comm'n 2017-06-21 2017-10-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission make an error of law by failing to conclude that the premium that PHI’s shareholders received as a result of its acquisition by Exelon Corp. violated § 6-105 of the Public Utilities Article and the regulatory compact governing the obligations and rights of monopolistic utilities in that it harmed customers and was inconsistent with the public interest? 2) Does the Commission’s unexplained conclusion that allegations of harm to the distributed generation and renewable energy markets resulting from Exelon’s acquisition of PHI were “speculation” render the Commission’s decision to approve the acquisition arbitrary and capricious?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2547, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

014
2017 Manchame-Guerra State 2017-05-23 2017-10-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did this Court’s decision in Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105 (2015), alter the threshold a factual proffer must satisfy to permit questioning of a witness’s subjective expectation of a benefit under Md. Rule 5-616(a)(4)? 2) Did the trial court err in prohibiting defense counsel from questioning the State’s main witness about whether he subjectively expected a benefit in exchange for his statements and testimony in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 899, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

013
2017 Blentlinger, LLC Cleanwater Linganore 2017-05-09 2017-10-10
[Oral Arguments]
2017-11-17
[Opinion]

Land Use – 1) Did CSA err by holding that a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (“DRRA”), in order to be valid, must include “enhanced public benefits” to the local governing body? 2) Did CSA err by holding that Petitioners’ proffer of a school site did not constitute adequate consideration for the DRRA?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2212, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

026 AG
074 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Smith   2017-10-10
[Oral Arguments]

  Attorney disciplinary matter
009
2017 Harris State 2017-05-09 2017-10-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by issuing a missing witness instruction concerning Petitioner’s mother, without conducting any inquiry or making any findings as to whether they had a relationship that would have rendered her peculiarly available to the defense? 2) Is a mother/son relationship, without more, sufficient to establish that the mother is peculiarly available to the son for purposes of the missing witness rule? 3) Did CSA err in finding that the trial court committed harmless error when it allowed a detective to testify that Petitioner had invoked his right to an attorney during a police interview?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 484, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

018
2017 Waterman Family Ltd. P'ship Boomer 2017-06-21 2017-10-11
[Oral Arguments]
2018-11-20
[Opinion]

Local Government – 1) May county commissioners rescind an express approval in accordance with Local Government Article (“LG”) § 4-416 to place newly annexed land in a zoning classification that allows a land use or density different from the land use or density specified in the zoning classification of the county or agency with planning and zoning jurisdiction over the land prior to its annexation? 2) May county commissioners rescind an express approval in accordance with LG § 4-416 allowing development of annexed land for land uses substantially different than the authorized use, or at a substantially higher density, not exceeding 50%, than could be granted for the proposed development, in accordance with the zoning classification of the county applicable at the time of the annexation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1783, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

016
2017 Ellis McKenzie 2017-06-21 2017-10-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

Environmental Law – 1) Does the Dormant Mineral Interests Act (“DMIA”) violate Article 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights and Article III, § of the Md. Constitution by retrospectively taking a vested property interest from a mineral owner and transferring it to a surface owner without compensation? 2) Is a notice of intent to preserve a severed mineral interest effective if recorded by the personal representative of a deceased owner’s estate while an action to terminate the interest is pending against the decedent’s descendants but not against the personal representative?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1723, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

025
2017 Williams State 2017-07-31 2017-11-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Is a conviction that is more than fifteen years old irrelevant as a matter of law to a character witness’s opinion about a defendant? 2) Were questions revealing Petitioner’s prior conviction, which occurred at least a decade before any of his character witnesses had met him, irrelevant to their opinions as to his reputation for peacefulness? 3) Were questions revealing Petitioner’s prior conviction substantially more prejudicial than they were probative of the witnesses’ opinions as to his reputation for peacefulness?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 537, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

021
2017 In the Matter of the Aaron Living Trust   2017-07-31 2017-11-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Estates & Trusts – Did the trial court err in entering an order approving restatement of the living trust in which the court approved the Trustees’ restatement of the trust with respect to the survival of the Aaron Family Foundation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 253, Sept. Term, 2016 (Unreported)

017
2017 Watts State 2017-06-21 2017-11-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Are intent to frighten and battery merely varieties of a single crime under Md’s assault statute or are they separate crimes, thus requiring individualized jury unanimity? 2) Is Petitioner’s claim of error unpreserved where Petitioner did not ask for the unanimity instruction he now claims was mandatory?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 98, Sept. Term, 2016 (Unreported)

023
2017 Dabbs Anne Arundel Co. 2017-07-31 2017-11-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

County Government – 1) Did the lower courts err in determining that “…the rough proportionality test [or the rational nexus test] has no application to development impact fees. . .where monetary exactions are imposed,” in contravention of Howard County v. JJM, 301 Md. 256 (1984)? 2) Did the lower courts err in permitting the retroactive application of legislation and not finding a taking under Article III, section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?

Court of Special Appeals (No. 2653, Sept. Term, 2015) [Opinion]

002 Misc.
2017 Application of Hamilton     2017-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
2017-11-08
[Order]
In the Matter of the Application of Maso Toussaint Hamilton for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
016 Misc.
2017 Application of Overall     2017-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
  In the Matter of the Application of Mark Andrew Overall for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
017 Misc.
2017 Application of Phillips     2017-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
  In the Matter of the Application of Solon Phillips for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
075 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Kargbo   2017-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
2017-11-07
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
054 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Giannetti   2017-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
2017-12-15
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
020
2017 Bank of New York Mellon Georg 2017-06-21 2017-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Civil Procedure – 1) Does judicial estoppel require a showing of an intention to mislead the court apart from a demonstration that the party “has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that a judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create ‘the perception that either the first or the second court was misled[.]’” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001)? 2) Is a ruling that a party lacked standing to assert its claims, but subject to the caveat that if the court was found to be wrong with regard to standing, the party failed to prove its case on the merits, a contingent ruling on the merits and thus not a final judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, or are the ruling on standing and the ruling on the merits alternative rulings, each entitled to preclusive effect?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2396, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

040
2017

Blackstone

Shanahan

Sharma

Marvastian

2017-09-12 2017-11-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a mortgage foreclosure action, which is a purely in rem proceeding against the subject real property, a “consumer claim” for “money owed” under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”)? 2) Is filing a mortgage foreclosure action, which by statute is not “doing business in this State,” nevertheless “doing business as a collection agency in this State” under MCALA? 3) Is the CSA’s ruling in Finch v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 212 Md.App. 748 (2013) – i.e., that a judgment in favor of an unlicensed debt collection agency is void as opposed to voidable – applicable to mortgage foreclosure judgments?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1524, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

045

2017 O'Sullivan Altenburg 2017-09-12 2017-11-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1613, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

047
2017 Goldberg Neviaser 2017-09-12 2017-11-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 238, Sept. Term, 2017 (Pending)

113 AG
2016 Reinstatement of Mungin     2017-12-01
[Oral Arguments]
2017-12-06
[Order]
Attorney disciplinary proceeding.
022
2017 State Johnson 2017-07-31 2017-12-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA properly conclude that the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk of respondent’s car based on drug evidence found on the person of her front-seat passenger?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2465, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

041
2017 Duffy CBS Corporation 2017-09-12 2017-12-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the term “arising” used in § 2 of the original statute of repose actually means “accruing” in contravention of this Court’s holding in John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Respondent had a constitutional vested right to repose prior to the effective date of the 1991 amendment to the statute which explicitly exempted manufacturers of asbestos-containing products from the scope of repose? 3) As applied, does CSA’s decision violate Petitioner’s constitutional right to access the courts?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 453, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

004 Misc.
2017 Ben-Davies & Moore Blibaum & Assoc., P.A.   2017-12-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Is the legal rate of post-judgment interest on a judgment awarded in a breach of contract action where the underlying contract is a residential lease ten percent (10%) as stated in Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-107(a) or is it six percent (6%) as stated in Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc § 11-107(b), which states that it is applicable to "a money judgment for rent of residential premises," where the judgment in the breach of contract action does not specifically delineate what portion, if any, of the judgment was awarded for unpaid rent?'

039
2017 Lamalfa Hearn 2017-09-12 2017-12-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Were Defense Exhibits 2-5 inadmissible hearsay due to the failure of authentication as a condition precedent to the business records exception to the hearsay rule? 2) Did the trial court err by admitting medical records pursuant to Md. Rule 5-703 without an appropriate foundation for establishing the truthfulness of the records?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 87, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

026
2017 Seaborne-Worsley Mintiens 2017-08-28 2017-12-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) In an automobile collision case, can the negligence of a permissive driver be imputed to a sole-owner passenger who is seeking recovery for injuries caused by a negligent third-party driver? 2) Was the non-party driver’s negligent parking a proximate cause of the accident?

Circuit Court for Baltimore County, No. 03-C-16-012948

027
2017 Rodriguez Cooper 2017-08-28 2017-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Did the trial court err in applying the cap on non-economic damages under Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. § 11-108? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to enter judgment against the State?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 1971 & 2850, Sept. Term, 2015, No. 904, Sept. Term, 2016 (Unreported)

028
2017 State Neiswanger Management 2017-08-28 2017-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Health General – 1) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen. § 19-345.3 authorizes a court to grant “injunctive relief” to remedy violations of the discharge-related provisions of the Patient’s Bill of Rights, the statute does not authorize “broad injunctive relief” barring “company practices” that violate those provisions? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen.§ 19-344 confers responsibility on the Attorney General for “enforcement” of certain of its provisions, it does not authorize the Attorney General to seek, or a court to grant, a judicial injunction enforcing those provisions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 526, Sept. Term, 2017 (Pending)

043
2017 Precision Small Engines College Park 2017-09-12 2017-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Land Use – Did CSA err in declaring that the memorandum of understanding between the City of College Park and the county restricts the authority of the city to issue non-residential building and occupation permits?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 774, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

005 Misc.
2017 Application of Silverman     2018-01-04   In Re the Application of David Louis Silverman, Jr. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

044
2017 In the Matter of Weintraub   2017-09-12 2018-01-04  

Estates & Trusts – Did CSA err in finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s motion to vacate?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 813, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

038
2017 Shealer Straka 2017-09-12 2018-01-04  

Estates & Trusts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that probate proceedings are to be stayed upon the filing of a caveat petition before judicial probate or after administrative probate, continuing the procedure under predecessor statutes recognized by Keene v. Corse, 80 Md. 20 (1894) and its progeny, despite the enactment of Estates & Trusts Article §5-207(b) which omits any language concerning a stay of proceedings from its text? 2) Was the harmless error standard satisfied by merely showing that the underlying decision from which an appeal is sought is final and binding upon the parties?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1023, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

032 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Sanderson   2018-01-05   Attorney disciplinary matter
036
2017 Bell & Bon Secours Hosp. Chance 2017-09-12 2018-01-05  

Torts – In a wrongful death action based on a suicide, is a defendant psychiatrist who discharged the decedent instead of continuing his involuntary commitment entitled to civil immunity under Health-General Article § 10-618 and Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 440 Md. 573, 103 A.3d 658 (2014)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2259, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

029
2017

State

State

Brookman

Carnes

2017-08-28 2018-01-05  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Do sanctions, imposed by a trial court in conjunction with participation in the problem-solving Drug Court programs in Respondents’ criminal cases, not constitute court action subject to appellate review where there is no finding of a violation of probation? 2) If properly before CSA for review, did the trial court properly impose the Drug Court menu sanctions provided for in Respondents’ cases for Respondents’ respective violations of the conditions of their Drug Court participation? 3) Is this controversy moot? 4) Does Rule 16-206(e) permit a drug court to impose a sanction involving the loss of a defendant’s liberty in violation of the drug court agreement? 5) Is a Drug Court sanction involving a loss of liberty imposed in violation of the protocols of Rule 16-206(e) and the drug court agreement a reviewable judgment pursuant to an application for leave to appeal?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 182 & 183, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

090 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Aita   2018-01-08   Attorney disciplinary matter
052
2017 State Weddington 2017-10-10 2018-01-08  

Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in holding that where a criminal defendant expresses dissatisfaction with counsel in a letter to the court less than two weeks prior to a trial date, received by the clerk’s office four days before trial, and of which the trial judge was not aware at the time of trial, the defendant has satisfactorily invoked Md. Rule 4-215, and did not waive the rule by failing to express his dissatisfaction to the judge during trial?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 122, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

042
2017 Motor Veh. Admin. Smith 2017-09-12 2018-01-08  

Transportation – Did the ALJ err in dismissing an Order of Suspension for a driver who had a breath-test result of .18 blood-alcohol concentration because the investigating officer refused to allow her to visit the rest room before submitting to a breath test, where the officer (1) had reasonable grounds to believe that she had been driving while under the influence of alcohol and 2) fully and correctly advised her of the administrative sanctions that could be imposed?

Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, No. 18-C-16-001627

005 Misc.
2016 In the Matter of Hon. White     2018-01-09   Judicial disabilities matter

035
2017 Ademiluyi State Bd. of Elections   2018-01-09   Election appeal.
049
2017 State Phillips 2017-10-10 2018-01-09  

Criminal Law – 1) Was Respondent precluded from taking an interlocutory appeal of a non-constitutional evidentiary ruling by the trial court? 2) Are the statutory limitations on State appeals inapplicable to State requests for in banc review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 713, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

005 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Slate   2018-02-01   Attorney disciplinary matter.
037
2017 Grimm State 2017-09-12 2018-02-01  

Criminal Law – 1) When a defendant challenges the reliability of a drug-sniffing dog overall and the reliability of the dog’s alert to the possible presence of drugs in a vehicle driven by the defendant, in accordance with Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), and the trial court rules that the dog’s alert established probable cause to search the vehicle, what is the applicable standard of appellate review? 2) Whatever standard of review applies, did the trial court err in ruling that the police had probable cause the search the vehicle driven by Petitioner? 3) Even if the police did not have probable cause to search Petitioner’s car, should this Court decline to apply the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule because the police relied on the drug-sniffing dog’s alert in objective good faith?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1172, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

051
2017 Christian Maternal-Fetal Medicine 2017-10-10 2018-02-02  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA apply the correct legal standard in affirming, in part the trial court’s prior determination that Petitioner did not have a good faith basis under Md. Rule 1-341 to bring a claim for fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and wrongful termination/constructive discharge where CSA viewed the record in the light most favorable to Respondent, ignored evidence and inferences that supported Petitioner’s good faith basis to bring those claims, and did not instruct the trial court to review on remand the entirety of information supporting Petitioner’s claims rather than solely the evidence admitted at trial? 2) Should this Court adopt the legal standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) in determining the movant’s burden of proof for establishing damages for a claimed violation of Md. Rule 1-341, namely that where a complaint contains both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, the movant may only recover attorney’s fees which would not have been incurred but for the frivolous claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 13, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

050
2017 Wheeler State 2017-10-10 2018-02-02  

Criminal Law – 1) Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely and proper demand under Courts & Jud. Proc., §§ 10-1002 and 1003, for the presence of all persons in the chain of custody, is it legal error for the trial court to admit drug evidence where the State fails to call the “packaging” officer as a witness; or as CSA  held in this case, is the admission of drug evidence under such circumstances subject to review for abuse of discretion? 2) Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of the drug evidence in view of the lack of a proper chain of custody?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1423, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

097 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Hecht   2018-02-05   Attorney disciplinary matter.
048
2017 Calvo Montgomery Co. 2017-10-10 2018-02-05  

Workers’ Compensation – 1) Where the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission is statutorily presumed to be correct and the appellate courts have held that whether an injury “arose out of and in the course of employment” constitutes a question of fact, should the trial court’s grant of summary judgment where Petitioner prevailed before the Commission be reviewed? 2) Should this Court review the holding that, as a matter of law, the “special mission” exception to the “going and coming” rule cannot be considered, notwithstanding that Petitioner was on her way to a different assignment, at a different work site, at the direction of her employer, in the furtherance of her employer’s business, and on her normal off day? 3) Given MD case law holding an injury compensable when it occurs in a place the employee would not have been “but for” her employment and/or while engaged in an activity “incidental” to her employment and Petitioner was involved in an accident only because she was traveling to training at the direction of her employer, did CSA err in finding that Petitioner’s claim was not “in the course of” her employment?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1036, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

053
2017 Hackney State 2017-10-10 2018-02-05  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the “prison mailbox rule,” under which a pleading is deemed to have been filed by a pro se prisoner when the prisoner delivers the pleading to prison authorities for mailing, apply to the filing of a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. Proc. § 7-103(b), which states that unless “extraordinary cause is shown,” a petition “may not be filed later than 10 years from the imposition of sentence,” and Md. Rule 1-322(a), which states that pleadings “shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court”? 2) Under the “extraordinary cause” provision of § 7-103(b), is the ten-year deadline for filing a petition for post-conviction relief tolled or otherwise extended when a pro se prisoner delivers his or her petition to prison authorities for delivery to the post-conviction court prior to expiration of the ten-year deadline? 3) Did the post-conviction court err in dismissing Petitioner’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief on grounds that it was not timely filed within the ten-year deadline where Petitioner was sentenced on October 23, 1998, his petition includes a certificate of service dated October 20, 2008, his petition was postmarked October 22, 2008, and date-stamped as received by the clerk’s office on October 24, 2008, and Petitioner was incarcerated when he filed his petition?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2513, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

054
2017 Carter State 2017-10-19 2018-02-06  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile homicide inmate have standing to challenge a life sentence he is presently serving based on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), on the theory that the sentence does not afford him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation and the sentencing judge did not comply with the process set forth by those cases to insure that such a sentence is only imposed on the rare incorrigible juvenile offender, and is such a challenge ripe for review? 2) Do life sentences imposed on juvenile offenders in Md. afford them a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation? 3) If so, did the sentencing judge consider the distinctive and mitigating aspects of youth in the manner required by Miller and Montgomery (and made retroactive by the latter) to ensure that such a sentence was imposed only on the rare incorrigible juvenile homicide offender?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1150, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

055
2017 Bowie State 2017-10-19 2018-02-06  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile nonhomicide inmate have standing to challenge his life sentence under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny? 2) Are life sentences for nonhomicide crimes committed by a child unconstitutional because Md. Law does not afford the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1906, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

056
2017 McCullough State 2017-10-19 2018-02-06  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the reasoning of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny apply to a 100-year sentence that is the aggregate of shorter sentences for multiple crimes committed during the same incident? 2) If so, did the 100-year sentence in this case afford the juvenile nonhomicide offender the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham? 3) May challenges to parole policies be raised as a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1081, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

057
2017 State Clements 2017-10-19 2018-02-06  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal? 2) Did the trial court err in considering, and granting, Respondent’s motion to set aside an “illegal” sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2607, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)