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
013
2014 Peterson, Jerrod M. State 2013-12-20 2014-10-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in ruling that the attorney-client privilege prevented the co-conspirator’s attorney from testifying about the co-conspirator’s proffer session with a prosecutor and a county homicide detective? 2) Was Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation violated when the trial court limited his cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 3) Did the trial court commit reversible error by limiting Petitioner’s cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 4) Are Petitioner’s claims regarding cross-examination of witnesses properly before this Court for review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1715. Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

029
2014 Anne Arundel Co. Bell 2014-03-21 2014-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
2015-04-21
[Opinion]

Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether noise from a predicted increase in traffic constitutes “special damages”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 273, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

047
2014 State Smith 2014-07-18 2014-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in reversing the circuit court’s denial of Respondent’s petition for a writ of coram nobis where Respondent had waived her coram nobis claims, failed to meet her burden of proving that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and was barred from seeking a writ of coram nobis on grounds of laches?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2224, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

007
2014 Spence State 2013-11-22

2015-01-08
[Oral Arguments]

 

Criminal Law – 1) May a police officer search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone as a search incident to arrest without a warrant? 2) Does a trial judge’s announcement that a jury trial waiver is “freely and voluntarily given” comply with Rule 4-246(b)’s requirement that the court “determine[] and announce[] on the record that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1521, Sept. Term, 2011 (pending)

011
2014 Demby State 2013-11-22 2015-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Were Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights violated when an officer, pursuant to a valid arrest, read text messages to and from others located on his cell phone without a warrant? 2) Are the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrines applicable where an officer, using information found by warrantlessly searching an individual’s cell phone, later obtains a search warrant for that cell phone’s contents?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2674, Sept. Term, 2012 (bypass)

043
2014 Sinclair State 2014-07-18 2015-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) May the police search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant, incident to his valid arrest? 2) Did CSA mistakenly conclude that Rule 4-252 is satisfied, and appellate review is available, whenever a trial court allows a previously filed pretrial omnibus motion to be withdrawn “without prejudice”? 3) If so, has Petitioner “waived” his claim under Rule 4-252, thereby precluding any form of appellate review, even discretionary review under Rule 8-131(a)? 4) Even if review under 8-131(a) is legally available, should this Court decline to exercise its discretion to engage in such review here because the record is deficient?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1724, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

073 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Smith  

2015-01-09
[Oral Arguments]

Due to a technical problem there is no video recording of oral arguments for this case. The link above goes to an audio recording.

  Attorney disciplinary matter
039
2014 Anne Arundel Co. Harwood Civic Ass'n 2014-06-18 2015-01-13
[Oral Arguments]
2015-04-21
[Opinion]

Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Balt., 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether CSA properly applied the “legal boundaries” standard of review to the legislative actions of the County Council? 4) Whether CSA erred in imposing the “consistency” requirement of § 1-417(b) of the Land Use Article? 5) Whether the considerations established as relevant to special aggrievement in Ray v. Mayor of Balt. apply equally to cases in which a private citizen challenges the validity of legislatively enacted comprehensive zoning? 6) Whether Land Use Article § 1-417 (enacted in 2012) required that comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 2011 be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 7) Whether the title to Chapter 674, Laws of Maryland 2013 retroactively required comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 2011 to be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 8) Whether Md. Code Ann., Art. 66B § 1.04(f) required comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 201 to be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 9) Because one element of unlawful spot zoning requires zoning that is inconsistent with the comprehensive zoning plan, can a local legislative body unlawfully spot-zone a particular property when adopting legislation that enacts into law a new comprehensive zoning plan, when all zoning included in the legislation is part of that plan?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1733, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

051
2014 Md. Casualty Co. Blackstone Int'l. 2014-07-18 2015-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
2015-04-21
[Opinion]

Insurance – 1) Did CSA err in holding that product packaging was “advertisement,” and that the “use of another’s advertising idea” need not be “wrongful use,” when it substituted its own definitions of those terms for the clear and unambiguous definitions contained in the Policy? 2) Did CSA err in applying this Court’s precedent requiring an insured to establish all three elements of coverage for “advertising injury” to trigger the duty to defend by concluding that the “causal relationship” element was not necessary in this case? 3) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioners waived policy exclusions as bases for denial of coverage and creating liability beyond the bounds of the Policy when, as a matter of public policy, coverage may not be expanded by waiver? 4) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioners waived policy exclusions as bases for denial of coverage when policy exclusion defenses were raised, argued and preserved in the trial court and on appeal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2302, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

042
2014 Sublet State 2014-06-18 2015-02-06
[Oral Arguments]

2015-04-23
[Opinion]

Cases No. 42, 59, and 60, Sept. Term, 2014 have one opinion.

Criminal Law – 1) Did the lower courts err in excluding crucial Facebook evidence on authentication grounds where the suspected author of the Facebook posts testified at trial, admitted discussing the fight on Facebook, and recognized this specific Facebook conversation, and where the posts contained numerous distinctive characteristics demonstrating authenticity? 2) In excluding Facebook evidence on authenticity grounds, did the lower courts err by applying an incorrect legal standard? 3) In assessing the Facebook evidence, did the lower courts err by not applying a correct and complete authentication analysis?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 311, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

059
2014 Harris State 2014-09-19 2015-02-06
[Oral Arguments]

2015-04-23
[Opinion]

Cases No. 42, 59, and 60, Sept. Term, 2014 have one opinion.

Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1159, Sept. Term, 2013, Pending

060
2014 Monge-Martinez State 2014-09-19 2015-02-06
[Oral Arguments]

2015-04-23
[Opinion]

Cases No. 42, 59, and 60, Sept. Term, 2014 have one opinion.

Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2270, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

050
2014 State Department of Assessments & Taxation Andrecs 2014-07-18 2015-02-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Taxation – Did the MD Tax Court correctly calculate the “taxable assessment” for homestead tax credit purposes under § 9-105 of the Tax-Property Article where the statute requires the taxable assessment to include the value of substantially completed improvements that a homeowner makes to his dwelling?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 0396, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

092
2014 Fuller Republican Cent. Comm. 2015-02-20 2015-03-02
[Oral Arguments]
2015-03-02
[PC Order]

State Government – 1) Does Article 3, Section 13 of the Constitution of Maryland (“Section 13”) prohibit a party central committee from submitting more than one name to the Governor to fill a single vacancy in the General Assembly? 2) Is a temporary restraining order appropriate relief to prevent a party central committee from violating Section 13?

Court of Special Appeals, No.____, Sept. Term, 2014, Pending

064
2014 Prince George's Co. Zimmer Development Co. 2014-09-19 2015-03-06
[Oral Agruments]
 

Zoning and Planning – 1) Did CSA err in its statutory construction of the “Regional District Act” (“RDA”) by holding that the District Council is vested with appellate rather than original jurisdiction over Planning Board preliminary determinations with respect to regional and legislative zoning matters? 2) Did CSA err by applying County Council of Prince George’s County v. Curtis Regency, 121 Md. App. 123, even though it involved a preliminary planning matter rather than a legislative, regional zoning matter which conflicts with this Court’s holding in County Council of Prince George’s County v. Dutcher, 365 Md. 399? 3) Whether the County Council’s 1996 enactment of the County Code (“PGCC”) § 27-132(f), providing that the District Council “shall exercise original jurisdiction” in its “review [of] a decision made by … the Planning Board,” is consistent with the provisions of the RDA? 4) Whether CSA’s holding improperly transfers the legislative, regional zoning authority expressly provided to the District Council by the RDA to the Planning Board, a subordinate agency? 5) Whether CSA’s holding violates the separation of powers doctrine because the judiciary has divested the legislative body of its legislative authority over regional zoning, including the applications related to zoning map amendments sought here, specifically designated by State law? 6) Whether CSA nullified the District Council’s statutory right to “remand” a case to the Planning Board for further information, and the District Council’s obligation to issue a “final” decision prior to judicial review, by holding that the District Council is limited after remand to only those issues that were remanded? 7) Assuming, arguendo, that CSA correctly held that the District Council’s standard of review of the Planning Board’s actions is the “arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal” standard, then whether CSA erred by reinstating the Planning Board’s recommendations as to Zimmer’s applications, instead of remanding for the District Council to apply the correct standard of review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 259, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

063
2014 Bonilla State 2014-09-19 2015-03-09
[Oral Arguments]
2015-05-22
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – Did CSA err by affirming the trial court’s judgment that a sentence below a binding plea agreement constitutes an illegal sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 508, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

052
2014 Woznicki Geico Gen. Insurance Co. 2014-08-27 2015-03-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Insurance Law – 1) In an uninsured/underinsured motorist case, did CSA err when it held that as a matter of law the underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier did not waive its right to written notice of a pending settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier where there was unequivocal testimony from Petitioner’s counsel that he received oral consent to settle from a UIM carrier representative? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the UIM carrier did not bear the burden of proving prejudice arising from the Petitioner’s failure to give written notice of the pending settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 532, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

054
2014 Morse Erie Insurance Exchange 2014-08-27

2015-03-09
[Oral Arguments:
Part 1
Part 2]

This recording is in two parts.

 

Insurance Law – When an underinsured motorist insurance company cannot prove prejudice should the law excuse it from paying contracted-for underinsurance benefits because the insured did not strictly comply with the requirements of Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., § 19-511?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 511, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

055
2014 Bontempo Lare 2014-08-27 2015-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Corporations and Associations – 1) Does Maryland adhere to the equitable reasonable-expectations employment doctrine or does it subordinate the doctrine to the at-will employment doctrine absent a written agreement guaranteeing continued employment? 2) Did the trial court apply incorrect legal standards in making its rulings on “fraudulent” conduct under §3-413 of the Corporations and Associations Art., petitioner’s constructive-fraud claim, and petitioner’s punitive-damages claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 678, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

004 Misc.
2014 State G&C Gulf   2015-03-11
[Oral Arguments]
2015-04-22
[Opinion]

Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Whether there is a justiciable controversy between the parties? 2) Whether Md. Code Ann., Transp. (1977, 2012 Repl. Vol., 2013 Supp.)("Transp.") §§ 21-10A-04(a)(3) and 21-10A-04(a)(4) are arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; and, if so, whether Transp. §§ 21-10A-04(a)(3) and 21-10A-04(a)(4) are severable? 3) Whether Transp. § 21-10A-04(a)(7) is void for vagueness and, thus, unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, if so, whether Transp. § 21-10A-04(a)(7) is severable?

056
2014 State Yancey 2014-08-27 2015-03-11
[Oral Arguments]
2015-04-21
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly find reversible error where the trial court, after denying the defendant’s request to approach the bench during voir dire examination of two potential jurors, only one of whom was selected to serve on the jury, stated that defense counsel could consult with Yancey before any decision regarding whether to strike a juror was made and found explicitly credible the seated juror’s testimony that she could be “fair and impartial”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1577, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

057
2014 Board of Public Works K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons 2014-08-27 2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Environmental Law – 1) Was Appellee required to await a final administrative decision and exhaust statutory administrative remedies before bringing an action for mandamus, injunction, and declaratory judgment to challenge the administrative procedure adopted to evaluate Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license? 2) Did the trial court err in substituting its judgment for that of the Board with respect to remediating the Wetlands Administrator’s conflict of interest, which involved a previously undisclosed relationship with one of Appellee’s attorneys and his law firm? 3) Did the trial court err in entering a writ of mandamus directing the Board to issue a decision on Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license by October 6, 2014, confining the facts that the Board may consider to those contained in that portion of the administrative record that existed on July 24, 2013, and limiting what the Board may consider in any future action on the project?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1134, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

086 AG
2009 Attorney Grievance Eckel   2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]

2015-05-22
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
069
2014 WSSC LaFarge North America 2014-09-19 2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Public Utilities – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a trial court may exceed the permissible scope of judicial review when considering a “deemed” rejection of a refund claim under PUA § 25-106? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s order mandating that WSSC’s investigative files be produced as part of the agency record pursuant to Md. Rule 7-206?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 886, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

068
2014 Ford Antwerpen Motorcars 2014-09-19 2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Commercial Law – Under Md. law, may a car dealer force its customers into binding arbitration of a claim arising from a vehicle sales transaction, when the vehicle sales contract does not contain an arbitration agreement and Md. regulations governing vehicle sales transactions require the vehicle sales contract to “contain[] all agreements of the parties”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2064, Sept. Term, 2013, Pending

066
2014 Breeding Koste 2014-09-19 2015-04-07
[Oral Arguments]
2015-05-22
[Opinon]

Real Property – 1) Does the “woodlands exception” apply to cases involving adverse possession as well as those involving prescription? 2) If the “woodlands exception” applies to adverse possession cases, does it apply to the facts of this case? 3) Assuming, arguendo, the “woodlands exception” does apply and the use of the property was initially permissive, did there come a time when the character of the use changed and became adverse?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2114, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

072
2014 State Hunt 2014-10-21 2015-04-07
[Oral Arguments]

Arguments for cases no. 72 and 73 are in one recording. Separate files will be uploaded as soon as possible.
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly reverse the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s amended petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing where Respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 8-301 and where the CSA ruling was inconsistent with its own case authority on the issue?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 162, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

073
2014 State Hardy 2014-10-21 2015-04-07
[Oral Arguments]

Arguments for cases no. 72 and 73 are in one recording. Separate files will be uploaded as soon as possible.

Case no. 73 begins at time 51:23.
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly reverse the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s amended petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing where Respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 8-301 and where the CSA ruling was inconsistent with its own case authority on the issue?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1329, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

070
2014 Dykes State 2014-10-21 2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) When it finds meritorious grounds for granting a motion to discharge counsel, what is the extent of the trial court’s authority to appoint counsel? 2) After finding meritorious reasons for discharge and after discharging both Petitioner’s public defender specifically and the Office of the Public Defender generally, did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s repeated pretrial requests for court-appointed counsel on the grounds that he was now “on his own” and that it did not have the authority to appoint counsel?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 484, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

077
2014 Wilcox Orellano 2014-10-21 2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – Did CSA err in concluding that a stipulation of dismissal signed by both parties in a health care malpractice claim constituted a “voluntary dismissal ... by the party who commenced the action” as intended by MD Code Ann., Courts & Jud. Proc. § 5-119(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1420, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

067
2014 State Norton 2014-09-19 2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in determining that Norton’s right to confrontation under the federal constitution was violated where a DNA expert testified regarding the work of another DNA analyst, and that expert was a supervisor in the same lab, reviewed the work of the other analyst, and came to his own conclusion that was consistent with the conclusion of the other analyst, but the analyst herself did not testify?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2382, Sept. Term, 2008 [Opinion]

075
2014 Shader Hampton Improv. Assoc. 2014-10-21

2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]

 

Real Property – 1) Whether the trial court properly held that Respondent was not estopped from claiming that the covenant in question was still valid in light of a prior, unappealed ruling that the covenant had been waived by abandonment? 2) Whether the trial court properly held that the covenant at issue had not been waived or abandoned? 3) Whether beneficiaries of covenants can permit violations of one part of a covenant and still seek enforcement of other parts of the same covenant? 4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not granting pre-trial summary judgment, where collateral estoppel should have prevented the Respondent from re-litigating facts which had been found against it in an unappealed prior action?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 845, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

071
2014 Windesheim Larocca 2014-10-21 2015-04-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Commercial Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that an employee of a lender is a “lender” for purposes of civil liability under the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (“SMLL”)? 2) Did CSA err by holding that the Respondents stated a claim on which relief could be granted under the SMLL? 3) Did CSA err by holding that a cause of action under the SMLL was “another specialty” under § 5-102 of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and therefore entitled to a 12-year statute of limitations? 4) Did CSA err by holding that it was a question of fact to be decided by the jury as to whether Respondents’ claims against Petitioner were barred by the 3-year statute of limitations under § 5-101 of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article? 5) Whether as a matter of law a defendant may be liable under the SMLL, where the false advertising that is the purported basis for the claim occurred orally in a private setting, and where the record contains no evidence that the defendant participated in any way in the communication of the statements allegedly constituting false advertising?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 766, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

065
2014 Counts State 2014-09-19 2015-04-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Is the value of the goods stolen an element of theft, such that amending a charging document on the morning of trial from theft under $1,000 (a misdemeanor) to theft of goods valued between $1,000 and $10,000 (a felony) constitutes a change to the character of the offense requiring the consent of both parties?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1571, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

076
2014 Thompson UBS Financial Servs. 2014-10-21

2015-04-09
[Oral Arguments]

2015-05-22
[Opinion]

Torts – 1) Should this Court adopt RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 242(2) and, in doing so, find that CSA erred in reversing the jury verdict for petitioners on conversion? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the jury verdict for petitioners on constructive fraud?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 352, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

022 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Shephard   2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
014 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Shuler   2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
082
2014 Scarfield Muntjan 2014-11-19 2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Civil Procedure – Does the filing of an amended complaint which presents a new claim and jury demand revive a previously waived right to a jury trial where the new claim is dismissed for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1065, September Term, 2012, Unreported

080
2014 Preston State 2014-11-19 2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Is the “witness promised benefit” jury instruction part of a special class of instructions, as CSA held, such that it remains always discretionary even when it is supported by some evidence? 2) Did the lower court abuse its discretion in declining to give the instruction where an eyewitness provided some evidence that she exchanged her cooperation with the State for free, protective housing? 3) Did the lower court err as a matter of law in declining to instruct the jury as defense counsel requested? 4) Does the record show that there was a “promise” or “testimony” that was “as a result of” a promise? 5) Is protective housing provided to a witness in a first degree murder case the type of “benefit” contemplated by the “witness promised benefit” pattern instruction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1293, September Term, 2012 [Opinion]

005 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Van Dusen   2015-05-07
[Oral Arguments]
2015-05-08
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
083
2014 Hranicka Chesapeake Surgical 2014-11-19 2015-05-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Workers’ Compensation –Whether the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission has the authority to generate its own administrative rule to relate a claim back to the date it was electronically filed, for limitations purposes.

Court of Special Appeals, No. 327, September Term, 2013, Unreported

085
2014 Varriale State 2014-12-19 2015-05-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to law enforcement’s retention and use, for general investigatory purposes, of Petitioner’s DNA profile collected for a limited purpose? 2) If applicable, whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use Petitioner’s DNA profile for a purpose that exceeded the limited terms of consent police relied on to collect Petitioner’s DNA samples? 3) Did Petitioner consent to the collection and subsequent use of his DNA profile?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1261, September Term, 2013 [Opinion]

006 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Katz   2015-05-11
[Oral Arguments]
2015-05-11
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
084
2014 Md. Dept. of State Police Dashiell 2014-12-10 2015-05-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

State Government – 1) Did the Department of State Police properly invoke the Maryland Public Information Act’s (MPIA) exemptions for personnel records and records that are confidential under other law – here, the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights – to deny a request for the internal affairs records of an investigation into the conduct of a specifically identified state trooper? 2) May a complaining victim be considered the subject of an investigation such that she is a “person in interest” under the MPIA?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1078, September Term, 2011 [Opinion]

018 AG

003 AG
2013

2014
Attorney Grievance Hamilton   2015-05-12
[Oral Arguments]
2015-05-13
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
034 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Trye   2015-05-12
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
090
2014 State Waine 2014-12-19 2015-05-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court retain the discretion, granted by Criminal Procedure Article § 7-104, to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by reopening Respondent’s prior post conviction proceeding to litigate an unwaived challenge to “advisory” jury instructions? 2) Should a circuit court consider a challenge to instructions under Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012), on a case by case basis to determine whether there is “a reasonable likelihood” that the jurors understood the court’s 1977 instructions as allowing them to convict Respondent on proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt? 3) Where the Unger majority ignored the underpinnings of the doctrine of stare decisis, and, in any event, was “plainly wrong” when it held that Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167 (1980) and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84 (1981) had set forth a new interpretation of Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights over thirty years earlier and when it held that Stevenson and Montgomery were to be applied retroactively, should Unger be overruled?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1792, September Term, 2012, Unreported

009 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Haley   2015-06-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
087
2014 Cooper Rodriguez 2014-12-19 2015-06-03  

Torts – 1) Is a correctional officer who acts without malice in performing discretionary acts within the scope of his public duties entitled to public official immunity? 2) Did the trial court properly strike the jury’s finding of gross negligence by the correctional officer where there was no evidence of an intentional failure to perform a duty or of reckless disregard for the life or property of another?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 748, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

074
2014 State Westray 2014-10-21 2015-06-03  

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in determining that, where Respondent was represented by counsel and requested discharge of counsel, the trial court was required to determine and announce on the record that he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to counsel? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Respondent’s request for the appointment of pro bono counsel on the grounds that it lacked the power to appoint pro bono counsel for Respondent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1836, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

046
2014 Wicomico Co. Dept. of Social Serv's B.A. 2014-07-18 2015-06-03  

Family Law – Where an instructor used class time to groom a student and lure her into a secret intimate relationship, should he be exempted from a finding of “indicated child sexual abuse” on the basis that his blatantly sexual behavior with the student occurred outside of class?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 238, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

056 AG

018 AG

026 AG
2013

2014

2014
Attorney Grievance Gray   2015-06-04   Attorney disciplinary matter
034 Misc.
2014 Application of Tabiei     2015-06-04   Application of Tabiei for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
088
2014 Griffin Lindsey 2014-12-19 2015-06-04  

Criminal Law – 1) Do crime victims lack statutory authority to appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Code (2008, 2011 Supp.), Criminal Procedure Article § 11-103(e), thus depriving CSA of jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution? 2) Did the trial court properly deny Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution from Petitioner, when the court had already accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner had already performed his part of the plea agreement, and the court had already sentenced Petitioner? 3) Under the principles of Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 604 (2010), does a binding plea agreement prohibit restitution when it makes no mention of restitution and purports to be the “full and complete agreement of the parties”? 4) Does the trial court lack authority to grant a victim’s request for restitution if the victim does not request restitution until after the court has already accepted a plea agreement that does not include it? 5) When a court has already imposed a sentence that does not include restitution, would granting a victim’s request for restitution illegally increase the sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 495, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

089
2014 Comm. Coll. of Baltimore Co. Patient First Corp. 2014-12-19 2015-06-04  

Torts – 1) Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding indemnification damages to Respondent related to its defense and settlement of claims against it for its own negligence, even though Petitioner did not expressly and unequivocally agree to indemnify Respondent for its own negligence? 2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Respondent’s general counsel to testify to the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees charged by outside counsel and clearly erred in awarding Respondent attorneys’ fees based on that testimony?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 568, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]