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
025
2015 Baltimore Co. FOP Lodge No. 4 2015-04-17 2015-11-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

County Government – Whether public policy, as clearly delineated in the Baltimore County Charter, the Baltimore County Code, controlling Maryland case law, and the separation of powers doctrine, provides an exception to the enforcement of the arbitration award in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1904, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

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

2015-12-03
Reargument
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: this video file is large (1.77 GB) and may take a few minutes to download.

2015-06-03
[Oral Arguments]

2015-08-27
[Order for supplemental briefing and reargument]

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?

Supplemental briefing and reargument ordered on the following additional issues: 1) In an ongoing instructor-student relationship, can "temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a child" pursuant to FL § 5-701(x)(1) be established through remote electronic communications? 2) Can "temporary care" pursuant to FL § 5-701(x)(1) be established without the mutual consent, expressed or implied, of the one legally charged with the care of the child and of the one purportedly assuming the "temporary care"? 3) Does an instructor who has temporary care or responsibility for a child on a repeated, ongoing basis, commit child abuse within the meaning of FL § 5-701 by sexually explicit communications made via texts, telephone calls or other electronic means to the child, provided there exists a significant connection between the abusive conduct and the in-person care or responsibility?

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

034
2015 Allmond Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene 2015-05-22 2015-12-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Health – Is Md. Code Ann., Health-General § 10-708, as amended, unconstitutional under the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2624, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

050
2015 Hall State 2015-08-21 2016-01-11
[Oral Arguments]
2016-06-23
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) As an issue of first impression, is Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-602.1, the criminal neglect of a minor statute, unconstitutional because it is vague? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for neglect of a minor?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2473, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported).

073 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Framm   2016-02-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
020
2015 Kiriakos Phillips 2015-03-27 2016-02-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Whether the acts of Respondent establish a prima facie claim for negligence under fundamental tort principles? 2) Whether Md. should recognize a narrowly tailored definition of social host liability when an adult directly provides large amounts of alcohol to a teenager when the adult knows the teenager will soon drive?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 834, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

055
2015 Dankos Stapf 2015-09-03 2016-02-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Are minors intended protectees of CL § 10-117(b), which prohibits adult property owners from allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on their premises? 2) Does MD recognize a duty of care arising from the special relationship between a parent hosting an underage drinking party on her property and a minor attendee who the parent permitted to attend and consume excessive amounts of alcohol?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2533, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]
013 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Kent   2016-02-08
[Oral Arguments]
2016-04-25
[Opinon]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
062
2015 Jackson Sollie 2015-10-16 2016-02-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Family Law – Should Md. follow the majority of states and require a trial judge to consider whether Social Security benefits should be offset against the marital portion of a Civil Service Retirement System pension upon dividing assets as a result of divorce?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 996, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

096
2015 State Rice 2016-02-18

2016-03-03
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: This case was argued with Nos. 97 & 98.

2016-05-20
[Opinion]

Please note: This case was consolidated for the opinion with Nos. 97, 98 &99.

2016-03-08
[PC Order]

Please note: This case was consolidated for the PC Order with Nos. 97 & 98.

Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the procecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2635, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

097
2015 State Nero 2016-02-18

2016-03-03
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: This case was argued with Nos. 96 & 98.

2016-05-20
[Opinion]

Please note: This case was consolidated for the opinion with Nos. 96, 98 & 99.

2016-03-08
[PC Order]

Please note: This case was consolidated for the PC Order with Nos. 96 & 98.

Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the procecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2636, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

098
2015 State Miller 2016-02-18

2016-03-03
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: This case was argued with Nos. 96 & 97.

2016-05-20
[Opinion]

Please note: This case was consolidated for the opinion with Nos. 96, 97 & 99.

2016-03-08
[PC Order]

Please note: This case was consolidated for the PC Order with Nos. 97 & 98.

Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the procecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2637, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

099
2015 White & Goodson State 2016-02-18 2016-03-03
[Oral Arguments]

2016-05-20
[Opinion]

Please note: This case was consolidated for the opinion with Nos. 96, 97 & 98.

2016-03-08
[PC Order]

Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 provide Porter sufficient protection against self-incrimination to allow his testimony to be compelled in the trials of Caesar Goodson and Alicia White?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 2489 & 2308, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

065
2015 Grant State 2015-11-20 2016-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Where the State has the burden to prove that a warrantless search was lawful, the resolution of the suppression motion turns on a specific fact, and the motions court finds that the evidence to this fact is “not clear,” does the motions court err in denying the motion to suppress? 2) Does MD recognize the “supplemental rule of interpretation” by which an appellate court fills in fact-finding gaps and resolves fact-finding ambiguities and does this rule allow a reviewing court to fill in a fact that is inconsistent with a fact found by the motions court where the reviewing court does not find the fact clearly erroneous? 3) Where a motions court’s factual finding is inconsistent with its subsequent legal conclusion, may an appellate court affirm the denial of the suppression motion on the basis of an inference that is inconsistent with the motions court’s factual finding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2742, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

067
2015 Brutus 630 Town of Bel Air 2015-11-20 2016-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
2016-06-23
[Opinon]

Local Government – 1) Does Md. Code Ann. Art. 24 §§ 9-710 and 9-712 restrict a citizen’s right to claim a refund of erroneously paid or collected money only to fees or charges that are “in the nature of taxes” where the plain language of the statute permits the citizen to apply for a refund, and to appeal the denial of a claim for a refund, of a “tax, fee, charge…”? 2) Does the Tax Court have jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for refund of systems connection charges? 3) Is a systems connection charge a “tax”, a “fee” or a “charge”, or a fee or a charge “in the nature of a tax” so that the Tax Court has jurisdiction over an appeal by the claimant from a denial of its refund claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2356, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

068
2015 Peninsula Regional Med. Ctr. Adkins 2015-11-20 2016-03-08
[Oral Arguments]
2016-05-26
[Opinion]

Labor and Employment – 1) Under MD’s Fair Employment Practices Act, is an employee required to show that she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” before an employer has a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation? 2) May a plaintiff prevail on a disability discrimination or failure to accommodate claim where that employee failed to engage in the interactive process with the employer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 712, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

064
2015 Brown State 2015-11-20 2016-03-31
[Oral Arguments]
2016-04-04
[Order remanding to the circuit court for entry of findings of fact]

Criminal Law – 1) Pursuant to the “supplemental rule of interpretation,” where a motions court makes a legal determination without making factual findings, must an appellate court fill in the fact-finding gaps by giving little or no weight to the losing party’s evidence, discrediting the losing party’s witnesses, and resolving any ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the prevailing party? 2) In reversing a suppression ruling, may an appellate court rely on a fact on which conflicting evidence was presented below or must the court accept the version of facts most favorable to the prevailing party? 3) What effect does a motions judge’s failure to make factual findings to support its legal conclusion have on the parameters of the appellate court’s review where conflicting versions of events necessitating factual findings were not presented at the motions hearing? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the motions court’s grant of Petitioner’s suppression motion?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 212, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

069
2015 Spangler McQuitty 2015-11-20 2016-03-31
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Whether Maryland follows the majority of jurisdictions which hold that a prior personal injury judgment obtained by the decedent completely precludes any subsequent wrongful death action based on the same negligent conduct? 2) Whether the decedent’s release, wherein he covenanted that “wrongful death beneficiaries… will not maintain any action for wrongful death,” precluded Respondents from filing a wrongful death action against Petitioners?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2375, Sept. Term, 2012 (Unreported)
074
2015 State Hart 2015-12-18 2016-03-31
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court violated MD Rule 4-231 by discussing a jury note with the foreperson in Respondent’s absence where defense counsel waived Respondent’s presence in order to view the note, and also suggested that the trial court question the foreperson about the note in Respondent’s absence? 2) Where a mistrial as to one count was manifestly necessary due to jury deadlock did Respondent, who was unavailable, not have a right to be present for the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial as to that count, and if Respondent did have a right to be present, was the error in declaring a mistrial in his absence harmless? 3) Assuming that the trial court committed reversible error in declaring a mistrial as to a deadlocked count in Respondent’s absence, did CSA err in holding that dismissal of the deadlocked count, rather than retrial, was the appropriate remedy?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1443, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)
019 Misc.
2015 Fangman Genuine Title   2016-03-31
[Oral Arguments]
2016-05-20
[Opinion]

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

Question - Does Md. Code. Ann., Real Prop., § 14-127 imply a private right of action?

072
2015 Morton Schlotzhauer 2015-12-18 2016-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA fail to credit and respect the discretion of the trial court and announce new mandates for a court in ruling on a Motion to Alter or Amend under MD Rule 2-534? 2) Did CSA misapply the law of relation back when it vacated the decision of the trial court and allowed plaintiff to pursue her original complaint which she had filed when not the real party in interest?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 49, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]
073
2015 Keller-Bee State 2015-12-18 2016-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
2016-06-23
[Opinion]

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA properly find that clerical employees of the district courts are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for negligent torts which result in injury to a citizen? 2) Did CSA fail to adequately and properly follow this Court’s decision in Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (1995) which held that a judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity but left open the question of whether clerical employees of the district courts were also entitled to such immunity?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1110, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

076
2015 Sieglein Schmidt 2015-12-18 2016-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
2016-05-20
[Opinion]

Family Law – 1) Whether the plain meaning of MD Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 1-206(b) can be interpreted to include a case of “in vitro” fertilization from a donated egg and donated sperm, as a result of which Petitioner has been declared a parent of the child and thereby liable for child support, even though the child has no genetic connection to either of the parties? 2) Whether the plain meaning of MD Code Ann. Family Law § 1-203(a)(2) can be interpreted to sustain a permanent injunction against Petitioner on the basis of “harassment”? 3) Whether the long settled meaning of “voluntary impoverishment” has been ignored by the decisions of the courts below?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2616, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

071
2015 Jackson State   2016-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
2016-06-23
[Opinion]
DNA Appeal

080
2015 CashCall Comm'r of Financial Reg. 2015-12-18 2016-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
2016-06-23
[Opinon]

Commercial Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act (“MCSBA”) does not require “’a direct payment’ from the consumer,” despite this Court’s contrary ruling in Gomez v. Jackson Hewitt, 427 Md. 128 (2012), that MCSBA requires that “any payment … must come directly from the consumer”? 2) Can a borrower’s repayments of principal and interest be treated as a fee paid “directly” “in return” for a loan marketer’s assistance in obtaining the loan, simply because the principal previously included an origination fee whose benefits inured entirely to the original third-party lender?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1477, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

075
2015 Taylor State 2015-12-18 2016-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
2016-05-23
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, may a law enforcement officer search a vehicle when he knows nothing more than the fact that the driver has been arrested for DUI and that, in his experience, evidence of DUI may be found inside the vehicle? 2) Must a vehicular search be supported by some quantum of particularized suspicion based on articulable facts? 3) Does the Fourth Amendment countenance a per se rule permitting a vehicular search in any case where the crime of arrest is one that may generate physical evidence? 4) Under the circumstances of this case, was the search of Petitioner’s vehicle unconstitutional?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 494, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

078
2015 McGhie State 2015-12-18 2016-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) When a trial court, ruling on the merits of a petition for writ of actual innocence, considers whether newly discovered evidence that an expert lied about his credentials and education created a substantial or significant possibility that the verdict may have been different, should the court simply “excise the false testimony” and determine whether the outcome may have been different if the jury had heard no testimony whatsoever about the expert’s credentials and education, or should the trial court consider whether the result may have been different if it was revealed to the jury during trial that the expert had lied about his credentials? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of actual innocence on its merits and ruled that newly discovered evidence that an expert had lied about his credentials and education did not create a substantial or significant possibility that the result of the trial may have been different?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2469, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

079
2015 Conover Conover 2015-12-18 2016-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Estates & Trusts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner is a “third party,” where Petitioner is a legal parent under E.T. § 1-208(b)(4)? 2) Should Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661 (2008), be reconsidered?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2099, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinions]

033 Misc.
2015 Application of Brown     2016-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
  In the Matter of the Application of Dierdre Paulette Brown for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
092
2015 Allen State 2016-01-27 2016-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did the trial court err when it ordered Petitioner to have no unsupervised contact with his biological, infant son as a condition of probation, thereby infringing on his fundamental right to parent, when Petitioner was convicted of sexually abusing a pre-teen girl who was not related to him and when the State failed to demonstrate that Petitioner was a threat to his son?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 617, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

086
2015 Kenwood Gardens Condos. Whalen Props. 2016-01-27 2016-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Zoning & Planning – 1) Does the County Board of Appeals have the authority and responsibility to review whether an “appearance of impropriety” taints and invalidates a County Council Resolution approving the initiation of a favorable Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) Zoning process consistent with its responsibility to review all procedural and constitutional issues per Prince George’s County v. Ray’s Used Cars, 398 Md. 632 (2007)? 2) Is there a serious and extraordinary problem of “appearance of impropriety” when there is an undisputed e-mail record linking the PUD Developer’s illegal campaign contributions to the County Council member with the Council member’s sponsoring of the PUD resolution? 3) Pursuant to the Baltimore County Charter Section, 1009 and MD case law is the County Council’s adoption of a PUD Resolution as to this specific property substantially an administrative action, even though not the final action in the process, and so clearly reviewable for a serious “appearance of impropriety”? 4) Consistent with County Council for Montgomery County v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691 (1975), even if County Council Resolution #108 is legislative in character, is it still subject to review where there is undisputed evidence of an “impropriety” which the reviewing administrative agencies and CSA all criticized and said should not be condoned? 5) Is the “appearance of impropriety” compounded where a County Council member mentioned in the State Prosecutor’s Statement of Facts was raising dollars for an election campaign and then followed up the PUD Resolution by sponsoring and facilitating the approval of legislation (Bill 38-12) which relaxed the long-standing relevant compatibility standard applicable particularly to this PUD, and favoring it in a way which had no rational relationship to compatibility?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2602, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

085
2015 Chase State 2016-01-27 2016-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does reasonable suspicion that an individual is engaged in drug activity, by itself, constitute reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous? 2) Under this Court’s case law recognizing that a display of force by the police, such as placing a suspect in handcuffs, constitutes an arrest requiring probable cause absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, was Petitioner under arrest when he was removed from his vehicle and placed in handcuffs? 3) If the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was armed and dangerous when he was removed from his vehicle and handcuffed, was that reasonable suspicion dispelled when the officers patted him down and found no weapons, thereby rendering his continued detention an arrest that was not supported by probable cause?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1394, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

088
2015 Givens State 2016-01-27 2016-05-05
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: The arguments for this case begin at timestamp 1:55.
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in refusing to strike the verdict for felony murder? 2) Is a motion to strike an inconsistent verdict waived if not made before the discharge of the jury?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 699, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

089
2015 Santo Santo 2016-01-27 2016-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Family Law – Do the “Taylor factors” (Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 304-11 (1986)), constitute binding legal parameters, circumscribing the discretion of a custody court faced with a “joint” versus “sole” legal custody decision?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 61, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

077
2015 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Stidham 2015-12-18

2016-05-09
[Oral Arguments]

Due to a technical glitch the recording linked above is very large.

A smaller version is available below in two parts. We apologize.

Part 1
Part 2
 

Torts – 1) After dismissing the appeal as moot, did CSA improperly issue an advisory opinion and inappropriately substitute its discretion for that of the trial court regarding the consideration of procedural safeguards to prevent prejudice to the Cigarette Defendants caused by permissive joinder with existing claims on the Asbestos Docket? 2) In rendering its advisory opinion, did CSA misapply the “important public concern” exception to the mootness doctrine in order to review a procedural issue presented only in a limited number of cases pending in a single court which can be reviewed in the future at Plaintiffs’ option? 3) Did CSA err in concluding that there was a final, appealable judgment despite the fact that the trial court plainly expressed its intention not to put Plaintiffs out of court and granted the right to refile? 4) After a case has been resolved as to all defendants by settlement, dismissal or summary judgment, are Plaintiffs thereafter precluded on the ground of mootness from obtaining judicial relief in the form of reinstatement back into the case of Defendants who were, over Plaintiffs’ objection, dismissed on the basis they were improperly joined?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 178, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

087
2015 Immanuel Comptroller 2016-01-27 2016-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Commercial Law – 1) Does the prohibition against providing financial information in response to Public Information Act (“PIA”) requests prohibit disclosure of information concerning comparative values when interpreted in light of the legislative scheme and purpose of the Abandoned Property Act? 2) Was it proper for CSA to affirm the modification of Petitioner’s PIA request, as to number and age of accounts, and thus interfere with Petitioner’s ability to profit from his work? 3) Was it proper for CSA to affirm the trial court’s vacating its earlier sealing of the case to protect Petitioner’s trade secret?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1520, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

084
2015 Sellman State 2016-01-27 2016-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding the police had reasonable suspicion to believe Petitioner was armed and dangerous, simply because he was stopped for generally suspicious conduct in a high crime area where thefts from cars had been reported at some unspecified time in the past? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the crime of theft from cars implies the use of a deadly weapon?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 913, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

032 Misc.
2015 Application of Gjini     2016-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
  In the Matter of the Application of Otion Gjini for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
090
2015 Long Injured Workers' Ins. Fund 2016-01-27 2016-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
2016-06-22
[Opinion]

Labor & Employment – Whether the Average Weekly Wage of a sole proprietor who elects covered employment status under MD’s Workers’ Compensation Act should be calculated based upon gross profits/earnings and not net profits?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2615, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

091
2015 Kponve Allstate Insurance 2016-01-27 2016-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
2016-06-22
[Opinon]

Insurance Law – Is Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 315 Md. 182 (1989) still good law?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 100, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

093
2015 Bandy Clancy 2016-01-27 2016-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the Orphans’ Court err in construing the decedent’s last will and testament to require the personal representative to fund the family trust prior to the payment of estate taxes, such that the older children’s trusts will bear the burden of all the estate’s federal and state estate taxes? 2) Did the Orphans’ Court err in finding that a marital deduction savings clause in a codicil to decedent’s will had the effect of overriding and eliminating the fundamental structure created by the will?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1595, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

101
2015 United Insurance Insurance Administration 2016-02-19 2016-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Must a party who challenges the constitutionality and retroactive effect of a newly-enacted Maryland statute exhaust administrative remedies of those challenges before a court can resolve them in a declaratory judgment action?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 20, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

100
2015 State Sanmartin Prado 2016-02-19 2016-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly hold that trial counsel’s advisement – that there “could and probably would be immigration consequences” to the defendant’s conviction for a “deportable” or “potentially deportable” offense – was constitutionally deficient because counsel “qualified” his advice and “did not provide him with the ‘correct available advice about the deportation risk’?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1078, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

103
2015 Smith Delaware North Companies 2016-02-19 2016-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Health Occupations – 1) Does the privilege set forth under § 14-410 of the Health Occupations Article (“H.O.”) bar the admission of evidence of a Board of Physicians Consent Order to impeach a physician who is offering testimony as an expert witness? 2) Was the privilege set forth under § 14-410 intended to be strictly limited to medical malpractice actions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 968, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

073 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Framm   2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments]

  Attorney disciplinary matter
095
2015 Hollingsworth Severstal Sparrow Point 2016-01-27 2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments}
 

Labor & Employment – Does a workers’ compensation award for permanent disability which resulted from an accidental injury survive the death of the claimant under § 9-632 of the Labor & Employment Art., so that it is payable to his dependents in a case where he was found to have additional disability due to a pre-existing condition which caused him to be permanently totally disabled?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 644, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

104
2015 State Johnson 2016-02-19 2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments}
2016-06-03
[PC Order]

Criminal Procedure – 1) As a matter of first impression, where a defendant waives all post-conviction rights as part of a sentencing agreement, does the waiver include the right to pursue post-conviction relief on claims arising from § 7-106 of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Where the legislature has mandated that a trial court “may reopen a postconviction proceeding … if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” did CSA err when it ordered the trial court on remand to treat Respondent’s first petition for postconviction relief as a motion to reopen a postconviction proceeding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1616, Sept. Term, 2014

105
2015 State Adams-Bey 2016-02-19 2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments}
 

Criminal Procedure – Where the legislature has mandated that a trial court “may reopen a postconviction proceeding … if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” did CSA err when it ordered the trial court on remand to reopen Respondent’s postconviction proceeding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 113, Sept. Term, 2013

102
2015 Comm'r of Financial Regulation Brown, Brown & Brown 2016-02-19 2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments}
 

Commercial Law – 1) Does the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act apply to providers of loan modification services? 2) Where the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act expressly exempts from its coverage only attorneys who meet specified statutory criteria, are attorneys who do not satisfy those criteria subject to the statute?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1327, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

019 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Shockett   2016-09-01   Attorney disciplinary matter
001
2016 Cane EZ Rentals 2016-02-19 2016-09-01  

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner the opportunity to assert and prove a defense under the Rent Escrow Statute to the landlord’s summary ejectment action? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s defense seeking rent offsets in the summary ejectment action?

Circuit Court for Calvert Co., No. 04-C-15-000089

063
2015 Stebbing State   2016-09-01   DNA appeal
005
2016 Washington State   2016-09-01   DNA appeal
003
2016 Bottini Dept. of Finance 2016-02-19 2016-09-07  

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA erroneously conclude that a seized bank account was “money” within the meaning of Md.’s CDS forfeiture statute where different deadlines for filing a forfeiture petition apply to “money” than to other types of tangible or intangible personal property? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply to Petitioners’ seized bank account the longer post-conviction forfeiture petition filing deadline for “money”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1857, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported).

008
2016 Colvin State 2016-03-25 2016-09-07  

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s conclusion that, upon request for a jury poll, polling the jury foreperson is unnecessary to ensure a unanimous verdict? 2) Is the claimed defect in the polling procedure cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2341, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

009
2016 Hanover Investments Volkman 2016-03-25 2016-09-07  

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA erroneously impose new standards under Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. (“CJP”) § 3-409(c) by depriving the trial court of all discretion to adjudicate a declaratory judgment action when there is a concurrent proceeding? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply, and thereby alter, the standards under CJP § 3-409(a) and (c) by concluding that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to support the trial court’s findings of unusual and compelling circumstances?

Corut of Special Appeals, No. 1595, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

010
2016 Mitchell Motor Vehicle Admin. 2016-04-22 2016-09-07  

Issues – Constitutional Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that personalized vanity plates are a non-public forum in which motorists who pay the fee to express their 7-character message may be censored despite expressing otherwise constitutionally protected private speech? 2) Did CSA err in choosing to censor a Spanish word based on the most offensive definition it could imagine, despite the existence of innocuous definitions of the term?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 713, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinon]

027 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Ucheomumu   2016-09-08   Attorney disciplinary matter
094
2015 Spencer State 2016-01-27 2016-09-08  

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court commit reversible error by reseating three jurors who had been struck by the defense where there was no evidence to support a finding of racial discrimination and where counsel’s explanations advanced the defense’s strategy and have previously been accepted by the courts as valid, race-neutral explanations for striking a juror? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of specific intent for a conviction of attempted second-degree murder?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 493, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

004
2016 State Hines 2016-02-19 2016-09-08  

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a joint trial, was the trial court within its discretion in admitting a co-defendant’s exculpatory statement which did not mention Respondent, but did mention the street where Respondent lived? 2) Was any error in admitting the co-defendant’s statement harmless?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2334, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

002
2016 SPAW, LLC Annapolis 2016-02-19 2016-09-08  

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err by failing to dismiss the city’s civil citation for a municipal infraction against Petitioner under § 6-103 of the Local Government Article (“L. G.”) and awarding the city broad injunctive relief? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that abatement of a municipal infraction is not a “penalty” under L. G. § 6-110 for the purpose of applying the one year statute of limitations in § 5-107 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article? 3) Did the trial court err by ignoring newly amended Md. Rules 2-501, which excludes the filing of a motion for summary judgment “after evidence is received at trial on the merits,” when the trial court granted summary judgment in the middle of trial before Petitioner could either respond in writing or present any evidence? 4) Did the trial court err in holding that municipal infractions were civil matters subject to Title 2 of the Md. Rules?

Circiut Court for Anne Arundel County, Nos. 02-C-13-181644 & 02-C-13-181663

054 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Mollock   2016-09-09   Attorney disciplinary matter
006
2016 Jamison State   2016-09-09   DNA appeal
011
2016 Bd. of Physicians Geier 2016-04-22 2016-09-09  

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err in rejecting the defendants’ assertion of absolute quasi-judicial immunity and denying reconsideration of its default order on liability? 2) Did the trial court err in compelling the production of personal financial information in aid of punitive damages despite the defendants’ absolute quasi-judicial immunity? 3) Did the trial court err in granting the Respondents’ motion for sanctions based on the Petitioners’ refusal to produce materials protected by the deliberative process, executive, attorney-client, and attorney-work-product privileges and the mandatory nondisclosure requirement of Health Occupations § 14-410?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 124, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

052
2015 State Jones 2015-08-21

2016-09-09
Reargument

2016-01-12
[Oral Arguments]

2016-05-23:
[Order for supplemental briefing and reargument]

Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, where the modality of the commission of a first degree assault is use of a firearm, is first degree assault an inherently dangerous felony capable of supporting a conviction for second degree felony murder or a non-inherently dangerous felony that would support a conviction for second degree felony murder only if committed in an inherently dangerous manner? 2) As a matter of first impression, where the modality of the commission of a first degree assault is the intent to cause or attempt to cause serious physical injury, is first degree assault a lesser included offense of second degree intent-to-inflict-grievous-bodily-harm murder?

Supplemental briefing and reargument ordered on the following additional issue: In deciding this case, should the Court re-consider its holding in Roary v. State, 385 Md. 217, 226-36, 867 A.2d 1095, 1100-6 (2005), as to whether first-degree assault may serve as a predicate for second-degree felony murder?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2475, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]