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
081 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Litman   2014-09-03
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-21
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
025 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Gage-Cohen   2014-09-03
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-21
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
049 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Blair   2014-09-03
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-28
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
003
2014 State Johnson 2013-11-22 2014-09-03
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-22
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – Is a “suggestion” by the defendant that the victim’s mental health records may contain information that is either exculpatory or relating to the victim’s “propensity for veracity,” not sufficient, under Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md. 112 (1995), to “call for an in camera review” of those records?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2776, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

097
2013 Howard State 2013-10-18 2014-09-03
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-19
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in refusing Petitioner’s request for a postponement without sending the matter to the administrative judge or its designee? 2) Did the trial court fail to make the necessary inquiry regarding Petitioner’s request for counsel before denying the request for a postponement? 3) Did the trial court err in finding that Petitioner’s waiver of counsel resulted in a concomitant waiver of the right to discovery? 4) Was Petitioner deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 456, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

010 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Weiers   2014-09-04
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-22
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
036 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Gelb   2014-09-04
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-22
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
016 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Brigerman   2014-09-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
099
2013 Gales Sunoco & Amer. Zurich Ins. 2013-10-18 2014-09-04
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-23
[Opinion]

Workers’ Compensation – Are Appellants in a de novo workers’ compensation appeal required to admit into evidence the award from which the appeal was taken as an element of their burden of proof?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 127, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

073 AG
2012 Attorney Grievance Kum   2014-09-09
[Oral Arguments]

2014-09-10
[PC Order]

2014-10-28
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
072 AG
2012 Attorney Grievance Adams   2014-09-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
002
2014 Burson Capps 2013-11-22 2014-09-09
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-23
[Opinion]

Financial Institutions – 1) Whether a Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”) Notice of Rescission can be effective to cancel a loan transaction that has not yet taken place, and remain effective despite the issuing party’s subsequent acceptance of the benefits of the transaction? 2) Whether a TILA action filed in December 2009 on the basis of a Notice of Rescission issued in April 2007 was untimely as beyond the one-year statute of limitation in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)? 3) Whether rescission is an available remedy when the trial court has no jurisdiction over either the original lender or its assignee because all claims against both have been dismissed, with no appeal taken from that dismissal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 327, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

005 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Reno   2014-09-10
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-19
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
033 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Felder   2014-09-10
[Oral Arguments]

2014-09-11
[PC Order]

2014-10-22
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
085
2013 State Payne & Bond 2013-09-20 2014-09-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) May a trial court allow a lay witness, without qualification as an expert, to testify about objectively verifiable facts regarding cell phone towers that do not involve the witness forming any opinion or drawing any inference or conclusion? 2) Did CSA err in ruling that wiretap statements made by Respondent Bond but not Respondent Payne were nevertheless admissible against Payne as statements by a party-opponent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2156, Sept. Term, 2009 [Opinion]

004
2014 Hiob Progressive Amer. Ins. 2013-11-22 2014-09-10
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-20
[Opinion]

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a partial voluntary dismissal can constitute an appropriate “separate document” for the purpose of Maryland Rule 2-601 even though that document is not signed by the clerk or the court? 2) Whether judgment was entered on the date the clerk entered the court’s order entering judgment and whether the notice of appeal filed prior to that docket entry is a premature appeal saved by the provisions of Rule 8-602(d)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3009, Sept. Term, 2010 [Opinion]

002 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Poverman  

2014-10-02
[Oral Arguments]

2014-11-21
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
014 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Worsham   2014-10-02
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-03
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
016
2014 Allen, Traimne Martinez State 2013-12-20 2014-10-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did the lower court err in reading MD Code, Public Safety Art., § 2-510, so broadly as to conclude that crime scene DNA of other suspects – one of whom had a conviction for a crime very similar to the events for which Petitioner stood trial – was not admissible at trial, and was Petitioner denied his constitutional right to present a defense?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 932, Sept. Term, 2010 [Opinion]

017
2014 Diggs, Howard Bay State 2013-12-20 2014-10-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does MD Code, Public Safety Art., §2-510, which provides that “a DNA database match may be used to establish probable cause to charge and arrest an individual” but “the database match would be inadmissible at a trial of that individual…,” prohibit the introduction at trial by a criminal defendant of evidence of DNA matches to alternative suspects; and if so, does §2-510 deny a criminal defendant his/her constitutional right to present a defense? 2) Did the trial court err in excluding evidence offered by Petitioner of DNA database matches to other suspects on evidence collected at the crime scene?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 929, Sept. Term, 2010 [Opinion]

099 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Wills   2014-10-03
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-03
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
028 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Barnett   2014-10-03
[Oral Arguments]

2014-10-03
[PC Order]

2014-10-22
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
018
2014 Williams Peninsula Regional Med. Ctr. 2013-12-20 2014-10-03
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-21
[Opinion]

Torts – Does MD’s involuntary admission immunity statute, Health General § 10-618, apply to health care providers who evaluate an individual and decide to discharge the patient from psychiatric care?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 284, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

017 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Merkle   2014-10-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
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

014
2014 Jones, Kevin E. State 2013-12-20 2014-10-06
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-19
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to convict Petitioner of second degree assault of the intent to frighten modality where the State failed to prove that Petitioner was aware of the existence of the victim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 660, Sept, Term, 2011 [Opinion]

063 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Thomas   2014-10-07
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-20
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
061 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Hodes   2014-10-07
[Oral Arguments]
2014-10-07
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
015
2014 State Stachowski, Kenneth Martin, Jr. 2013-12-20 2014-10-07
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-20
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a court may not order restitution as part of a plea agreement on a charge as a condition of a probation in another matter before the court, creating uncertainty in conflict with this Court’s holdings in Walczak and Lee? 2) Did CSA err in vacating only the negotiated and accepted restitution condition required of Petitioner, which was part of the plea agreement, rather than rescinding the entire plea agreement, thus allowing Petitioner the full benefit of his bargain with the State without assuming any of his negotiated burden?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2051, Sept. Term, 2006 [Opinion]

102
2013 Johnson, Steven M. State   2014-10-07
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-21
[Opinion]
DNA Appeal
003 Misc.
2014 Application of T. Z.-A. O. for Admission to the Bar of Md.     2014-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Show cause
004 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Chang   2014-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
2014-11-07
[Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
007 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Mixter   2014-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
020
2014 McCree State 2014-01-24 2014-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Is the trademark counterfeiting statute, Md. Code, Crim. Law Art. § 8-611 (2012 Repl. Vol.), unconstitutional because it is overbroad and/or void-for-vagueness?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 525, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

023
2014 Oglesby State 2014-01-24 2014-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Pursuant to the rule of lenity, was Appellant required to be sentenced for possession of a firearm pursuant to Crim. Law Art., § 5-622, one of the two statutes punishing the conduct for which he was sentenced, because it prescribed a more lenient sentence than that mandated by the statute, Public Safety Art., § 5-133, under which he was sentenced?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 197, Sept. Term, 2013 (bypass)

026
2014 Kelly Duvall 2014-02-21 2014-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the lower court err in construing the Will in a manner inconsistent with Md. Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 4-401 and finding that it imposed survivorship as a condition precedent to inheritance under the Will? 2) Did the lower court err in construing the Will as demonstrating the Testatrix’s contrary intent sufficient to overcome the presumption that § 4-403 (2013) (the “anti-lapse” statute) applies?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1688, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

022
2014 Simpson State 2014-01-24 2014-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the State violate a criminal defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when a prosecutor repeatedly and over objection assures the jury in opening statement that the defendant “will tell you” that he committed the alleged offenses? 2) Does a trial court commit reversible error when it allows the State to offer opinion testimony from a law enforcement officer concerning his canine partner’s alleged detection of an accelerant without requiring the State to name the officer as an expert prior to trial or to qualify the officer as an expert at trial? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a police officer may not testify as to the significance of an accelerant-detecting dog’s actions unless that officer is first qualified and accepted as an expert pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2833, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

003 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Smith   2014-11-10
[Oral Arguments]

  Attorney disciplinary matter
021
2014 People's Insurance Counsel Div. State Farm Fire & Casualty 2014-01-24 2014-11-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Insurance Law – 1) Should this Court reexamine Maryland common law on construing insurance contracts and, recognizing that such contracts are not the product of equal bargaining, hold that terms contained in an insurance policy must be strictly construed against the insurer? 2) Did the Commissioner err in allowing State Farm to deny coverage for damage to a collapsed carport under a policy that insured against “the sudden, entire collapse of a building” based on a restrictive definition of the term “building” that does not appear in the insurance policy or any other written document, and is based only on oral instructions given to a catastrophe claims adjuster when she was dispatched to handle claims following a severe snowstorm?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1353, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

025
2014 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300 & McClure Lovelace 2014-02-21 2014-11-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Labor & Employment – Is an internal union remedy “inadequate” under Md. common law if it does not allow for the monetary damages that the plaintiff seeks in court?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1020, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

019
2014 Rounds M-NCPPC 2013-12-20 2014-11-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Local Government – 1) Whether parties seeking redress from alleged government violations of the Constitution should be required to adhere to the strict notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the severe remedy of dismissal for an alleged failure to join necessary parties, despite the Complaint’s assertion that non-defendant neighbors did not oppose action? 3) Did CSA err in its factual determination that Petitioners failed to file this cause of action within the statute of limitations?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 889, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

032 & 046 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Green   2014-11-12
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
027
2014 Cunningham Feinberg 2014-02-21 2014-11-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Labor & Employment – 1) Does application of the Md. choice of law principle of lex loci contractus preclude a claim under the Md. Wage Payment and Collection Law (MD. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (“MWPCL”))? 2) Does proper application of lex loci contractus preclude respondent’s MWPCL claim?

Circuit Court for Montgomery Co., No. 8778D

012 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Buehler   2014-12-05   Attorney disciplinary matter
083 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Shapiro   2014-12-05   Attorney disciplinary matter
029
2014 Anne Arundel Co. Bell 2014-03-21 2014-12-05  

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]

028
2014 State Callahan 2014-03-21 2014-12-05  

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the lower court violated the doctrine of the separation of powers in finding respondent in violation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with a lawful order of his probation agent where the order was a requirement of his mandatory parole release conditions? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the lower court erred in revoking Callahan’s probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2365, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

008 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Haley   2014-12-08   Attorney disciplinary matter
001 Misc.
2014 Antonio SSA Security   2014-12-08  

Certified question of Law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?

031
2014 Metro Maint. Sys. South Milburn 2014-03-21 2014-12-08  

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in its decision that the lower court’s remand order was not a “final judgment” as defined by CJP § 12-301? 2) Did the lower court act arbitrarily and capriciously in remanding a final administrative decision to the processes of an administrative agency without conducting any record review and without any finding of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, cognizable defect, intervening factors or subsequent events? 3) Did CSA properly decide Anne Arundel County v. Rode, 214 Md.App. 702 (2013), and properly apply that ruling to the procedural circumstances in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2367, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

086 AG,
013 AG,
057 AG
2014
2013
2013
Attorney Grievance Barton   2014-12-09   Attorney disciplinary matter
030
2014 Falls Garden Condo. Falls HOA 2014-03-21 2014-12-09  

Civil Procedure – 1) Whether it was error to enforce the Letter of Intent given the parties never intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent and the Letter of Intent does not contain all material terms? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to hold a full plenary hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement since the existence of a binding and enforceable agreement was contested and there were contradicting proffers regarding a material issue, i.e. whether the parties intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 443, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

048 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Olszewski   2014-12-10   Attorney disciplinary matter
036
2014 State Graves 2014-04-18 2014-12-10  

Criminal Procedure – 1) As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in determining that § 8-401 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which was enacted while Respondent’s appeal was pending, applies retroactively to Respondent’s case? 2) If § 8-401 applies retroactively, is the appropriate remedy a remand and not a reversal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2832, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

047
2014 State Smith 2014-07-18 2014-12-10  

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

015 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Burghardt   2015-01-08   Attorney disciplinary matter
007
2014 Spence State 2013-11-22 2015-01-08  

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  

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  

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   Attorney disciplinary matter
002 Misc
2014 Patriot Elec. & Mech. Manufacturers & Traders   2015-01-09   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"?
040
2014 Harrison-Solomon State 2014-06-18 2015-01-09  

Criminal Law – Where Petitioner was committed to the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene pursuant to a finding that he was not criminally responsible, was subsequently conditionally released, and did not violate any of the conditions of his release, did the circuit court have jurisdiction, after the expiration of the order of conditional release (OCR), to grant a motion to “extend” the OCR filed five days prior to its expiration?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2253, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

031 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Butler   2015-01-12   Attorney disciplinary matter
035
2014 Espina Jackson 2014-05-15 2015-01-12  

Constitutional Law – 1) Can the General Assembly contravene or restrict by statute self-executing rights in the state constitution? 2) Does the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA) encompass and serve to cap self-executing constitutional rights? 3) With 96.5% of the verdict stripped from the petitioners, is the application of the LGTCA damages cap to the facts here unconstitutional under Art. 19? 4) Did CSA err in applying the LGTCA cap to the constitutional deprivations here after the jury found malice and the County stipulated to scope of employment? 5) Did CSA err in holding that all wrongful death claims are reduced to one claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2044, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

037
2014 Smiley State 2014-04-18 2015-01-12  

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting the prior recorded statement of an unavailable witness after finding that Petitioner procured the witness’s unavailability at trial? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress an extrajudicial identification of Petitioner where his photograph was one of only two in a photographic array which was not visibly altered and his clothing matched the shooter’s described attire? 3) Should MD adopt, either as a matter of State constitutional or evidentiary law, a standard for evaluating the admissibility of eyewitness identifications which better reflects present scientific knowledge concerning eyewitness memory?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2237, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

038
2014 Payne Erie Insurance Exchange 2014-05-15 2015-01-12  

Insurance Law – Under Maryland Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Kornke, et al., 21 Md.App. 178, 319 A.2d 603 (1974) and its progeny, did the trial court err in holding that Erie was not required to provide coverage to a second permittee using an insured’s car within the named insured’s original grant of permissive use?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 46, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

001 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Cocco   2015-01-13   Attorney disciplinary matter
030 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Basinger   2015-01-13   Attorney disciplinary matter
039
2014 Anne Arundel Co. Harwood Civic Ass'n 2014-06-18 2015-01-14  

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

064 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Marcalus   2015-02-05   Attorney disciplinary matter
005 Misc.
2014 Schlossberg Bell Builders Remodeling   2015-02-05  

Certified question of law from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland.

Would meeting the factors set forth in DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., 540 F.2d 681-87 (4th Cir. 1976), be sufficient to establish a paramount equity, in the absence of common law fraud, to warrant piercing the corporate veil?

051
2014 Md. Casualty Co. Blackstone Int'l. 2014-07-18 2015-02-05  

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]

048
2014 State Manion 2014-07-18 2015-02-05  

Criminal Law – Where, consistent with State v. Coleman, 423 Md. 666 (2011), the trier of fact inferred an intent to deprive from acts subsequent to the defendant’s deception, did CSA err when it drew different inferences from the same conduct and reversed the conviction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 410, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

042
2014 Sublet State 2014-06-18 2015-02-06  

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  

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  

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

045
2014 Connors Gov't Empl. Insurance Co. 2014-07-18 2015-02-09  

Insurance – Do the underinsured motorist provisions of GEICO’s insurance contract provide Petitioner a limit of underinsured coverage of $300,000 for each injured person, subject to an aggregate payment to all Petitioner’s claims by GEICO not to exceed $300,000?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 773, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]
049
2014 In Re: Tyrell A.   2014-07-18 2015-02-09  

Criminal Law (Juvenile) – 1) Does the term “victim,” defined in Md. Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol) Criminal Procedure Art., §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a), as “a person who suffers death, personal injury, or property damage or loss as a direct result of a crime or delinquent act,” include an individual who sustains personal injury while voluntarily participating in the crime or delinquent act? 2) Is an individual who sustains personal injury while voluntarily participating in the common law offense of affray a “victim” within the meaning of §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a)? 3) Should the definition of “victim” in §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a) be given a different interpretation in juvenile delinquency cases than in criminal cases? 4) Did the trial court lack authority to order Petitioner to make restitution in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1250, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

050
2014 State Department of Assessments & Taxation Andrecs 2014-07-18 2015-02-09  

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

044
2014 Baltimore Co. Thiergartner 2014-07-18 2015-02-10  

Labor & Employment – 1) Is the County entitled to a complete offset of workers’ compensation benefits due to Respondent’s election and receipt of a lump sum retirement benefit payment under the County’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) until such time as that DROP payment is fully accounted for by operation of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-503? 2) What methodology is correct for calculation of the County’s offset of workers’ compensation benefits to effectuate the legislative purpose of § 9-503 where Respondent has elected and received a lump sum payment of retirement benefits under DROP?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2053, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

058
2014 Walters Baltimore Co. 2014-08-27 2015-02-10  

Workers’ Compensation – 1) Is the County entitled to a complete offset of workers’ compensation benefits due to appellant’s election and receipt of a lump sum retirement benefit payment under the County’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) until such time as that DROP payment is fully accounted for by operation of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl., § 9-503? 2) What methodology is correct for calculation of the County’s offset of workers’ compensation benefits to effectuate the legislative purpose of § 9-503 where appellant has elected and received a lump sum payment of retirement benefits under DROP?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1542, Sept. Term, 2013, Pending

041
2014 Garner State 2014-06-18 2015-02-10  

Criminal Law – 1) Are separate consecutive sentences for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence prohibited when a single handgun is used in committing two crimes against a single victim in one transaction? 2) Where CSA correctly determined that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, but failed to correct that illegal sentence, should this Court correct the illegal nature of the sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2722, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported