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
2013 Kulbicki, James State 2013-02-22 2013-10-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law - 1) Does a conviction obtained through the use of scientific evidence that is later demonstrated to be unreliable, misleading, and inadmissible violate a defendant's guarantee of due process? 2) Does the use of perjured expert testimony by a State expert violate a defendant's due process rights when the perjured testimony involves the expert's qualifications and background? 3) Does the failure of defense counsel to investigate or challenge the State's scientific evidence and failure to object to the scope of the State's closing arguments constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? 4) Did CSA err in stating that the State is chargeable with the “knowing use of perjured testimony” where the falsity is unknown at the time of the testimony?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2940, Sept. Term, 2007 [Opinion]

046
2013 Brooks, Wardell Monroe State 2013-06-20 2014-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law - 1) Where the defense seeks to impeach a witness at trial pursuant to MD Rules 5-613 and 5-616 using a prior inconsistent statement to police, must the extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement take the form of testimony by the police officer who took the statement or may the properly authenticated police report be used? 2) What is the appropriate standard of review for a trial court's ruling concerning the admission of impeachment evidence? 3) Did the trial court err by admitting testimony by a nurse, accepted as an expert in forensic nursing examinations with an emphasis in sexual assault”, concerning the victim's injuries? 4) Did CSA err in holding that even if the nurse's testimony was inadmissible, the error was harmless? 5) Did the trial court err in failing to merge false imprisonment into first degree rape for sentencing purposes?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 437, Sept. Term, 2010, Unreported
063
2013 NIHC, Inc. Comptroller 2013-07-03 2014-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
2014-08-18
[Opinion]
Taxation - 1) Did CSA err in changing the question presented on appeal in order to address a question and a Tax Court decision not properly before the court? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the Tax Court's decision on grounds other than those set forth by the Tax Court? 3) Did CSA err in affirming the Tax Court's ruling that MD's requirement for separate corporate tax returns does not prevent an assessment based on the income Petitioner reported as MD modified income on its MD tax returns?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2348, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported
078
2013 Hamilton Kirson 2013-08-04 2014-04-03
[Oral Arguments]

2014-06-20
[Opinion]

(Note: Cases No. 78 and 100, Sept. Term 2013, have one opinon addressing both.)

Torts – 1) Did the trial court err by refusing to allow plaintiff’s expert witnesses to testify that the defendant’s property was a substantial contributing cause to plaintiff’s injurious lead exposure on the grounds that they did not sufficiently rule out other potential sources of lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence as to causation? 3) Is a Dow analysis applicable to a lead paint claim involving possible exposure at multiple properties?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1530, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

100
2013 Alston 2700 Virginia Ave. Assoc. 2013-10-18 2014-04-03
[Oral Arguments]

2014-06-20
[Opinion]

(Note: Cases No. 78 and 100, Sept. Term 2013, have one opinon addressing both.)

Torts -1) By following its decision in West v. Rochkind, 212 Md.App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), did CSA improperly undermine the common law principle that the law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence and direct evidence and that no greater degree of certainty is required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence? 2) Did CSA’s decision in West improperly change a Plaintiff’s burden of proof in a circumstantial evidence case from “preponderance of the evidence” to greater than “beyond a reasonable doubt?” 3) Does CSA’s holding improperly require a Plaintiff in a lead-paint case to prove that a given property was “the only possible explanation” for a Plaintiff’s injuries in order to make a circumstantial case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 11, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

077
2013 Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Magothy River Assoc. DCW Dutchship Island 2013-08-14

2014-04-04
[Oral Arguments]

2014-08-04
[Opinion]

Environmental Law – 1) Did the Board of Appeals correctly determine that CBF lacked standing to participate in the variance proceedings? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the widely held judicial rule that the standing of similar parties will not be challenged if at least one party has standing does not apply in administrative proceedings? 3) Did CSA correctly refuse to determine whether Anne Arundel County law violates Md. Ann. Code Article 25A, § 5(U)? 4) Did the Board of Appeals correctly determine that Respondents have met their burden of proof and persuasion on the Critical Area variance standards of self-created hardship and minimum variance necessary to afford relief? 5) Was it proper for the Board of Appeals to grant a blanket variance of 3,325 sq. ft., and not provide a specific amount of impervious square footage for each variance requested? 6) Did CSA apply an incorrect standard with respect to whether the variance granted by the Board of Appeals was the minimum necessary to afford relief?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 60, Sept. Term, 2009, Unreported

069
2012 Raynor, Glenn Joseph State 2012-09-21 2014-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – (1) Whether, under the Fourth Amendment & Art. 26 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, a citizen maintains an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the DNA found in genetic material involuntarily and knowingly deposited through ordinary biological processes? (2) Whether, under the Fourth Amendment & Art. 26 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, the determination of an individual's expectation of privacy requires consideration of the privacy interest in the information obtained, & not just the privacy interest in the place in which it was found? (3) Was the collection and testing of Petitioner's perspiration a limited intrusion justified by reasonable suspicion? (4) Even if not constitutionally reasonable, does law enforcement conduct in this case not justify application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1629, Sept. Term, 2009 [Opinon]

086
2013 Peters Early Healthcare Giver 2013-09-20 2014-04-29
[Oral Arguments]
2014-08-13
[Opinion]

Labor & Employment – 1) Are overtime wages recoverable under the MD Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL)? 2) In a bench trial, is it an abuse of discretion to fail, without explanation, to award treble damages under the MWPCL where there is no claim of bona fide dispute? 3) Should any award of up to treble damages under MWPCL be made in addition to the award of unpaid wages?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 336, Sept. Term, 2013 (pending)

082
2013 W.R. Grace & Co. Swedo 2013-09-20 2014-04-30
[Oral Arguments]

2014-07-22
[Opinion]

(Note: Cases No. 82, 91, and 92, Sept. Term 2013, have one opinon.)

Workers’ Compensation – Did CSA err in holding that credit for compensation already paid when a permanency award is reversed on appeal should be given in terms of dollars instead of weeks?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 998, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

091
2013 Florida Rock Industries Owens 2013-09-20 2014-04-30
[Oral Arguments]

2014-07-22
[Opinion]

(Note: Cases No. 82, 91, and 92, Sept. Term 2013, have one opinon.)

Workers’ Compensation – Whether the statutory credit provided in § 9-633 of the Workers’ Compensation Act should be calculated based on the number of weeks of benefits previously paid or on the dollar amount of the benefits previously paid?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2006, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

092
2013 Coffee Rent-a-Center 2013-09-20 2014-04-30
[Oral Arguments]

2014-07-22
[Opinion]

(Note: Cases No. 82, 91, and 92, Sept. Term 2013, have one opinon.)

Workers’ Compensation – Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment in favor of appellees based on a finding that when an award of Workers’ Compensation permanent partial disability benefits is increased on appeal, credit for payments made under the previous award should be expressed in weeks rather than dollars?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 116, Sept. Term, 2013 (pending)

096
2013 Baltimore Co. FOP Lodge #4 2013-10-18 2014-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
2014-07-29
[Opinion]

County Government – Whether the trial court erred when it issued a writ of mandamus requiring Baltimore County to designate a third party neutral to receive and investigate FOP’s complaint of an unfair labor practice regarding a change to personnel policy set forth in the County Personnel Manual, which, by definition is not subject to negotiation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 830, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

094
2013 Dehn Motor Sales Schultz 2013-10-18 2014-06-05
[Oral Arguments]
2014-07-22
[Opinion]

Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioners’ replevin action did not substantially comply with the notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act even though the City Solicitor’s office litigated the replevin action for three years? 2) Did CSA err in its conclusion that the Respondent police officers were constitutionally justified in seizing 67 vehicles without a warrant or court order because of an alleged emergency when that fact was disputed by Petitioners?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1276, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

098
2013 Spacesaver Systems Adam 2013-10-18 2014-06-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Labor & Employment – 1) Under MD Law, is there a distinction between a lifetime employment contract and a “continuous for-cause contract,” both terminable for any reason by employee and only for cause by employer, such that each should have different amounts and degrees of proof and different consideration required? 2) Where an employment contract contains no provision addressing duration of employment, must the contract be clear, specific and definite that the parties intended to create continuous and indefinite employment, terminable only for cause? 3) Where an employment contract contains no provision addressing the duration of employment, does a “for-cause” provision transform the contract to one providing employment for life where there is no “special consideration” to establish a contract for lifetime employment? 4) Is this Court’s dicta in Towson University v. Conte, 384 Md. 68, 862 A.2d 941 (2004) suggesting that a “just cause” provision transforms “at-will” employment into employment terminable only for cause inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Suburban Hospital v. Dwiggins, 324 Md. 294, 596 A.2d 1069 (1991) that employment contracts of an indefinite duration create “at-will” employment and remain so even if that agreement sets forth some bases that provide the employer cause for termination? 5) Does the presence of a “for cause” provision in an employment contract transform at-will employment to lifetime employment terminable only for cause?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1797, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

081 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Litman   2014-09-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
025 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Gage-Cohen   2014-09-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
049 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Blair   2014-09-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
003
2014 State Johnson 2013-11-22 2014-09-03  

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  

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   Attorney disciplinary matter
036 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Gelb   2014-09-04   Attorney disciplinary matter
016 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Brigerman   2014-09-04   Attorney disciplinary matter
099
2013 Gales Sunoco & Amer. Zurich Ins. 2013-10-18 2014-09-04  

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   Attorney disciplinary matter
072 AG
2012 Attorney Grievance Adams   2014-09-09   Attorney disciplinary matter
002
2014 Burson Capps 2013-11-22 2014-09-09  

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   Attorney disciplinary matter
033 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Felder   2014-09-10   Attorney disciplinary matter
085
2013 State Payne & Bond 2013-09-20 2014-09-10  

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  

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   Attorney disciplinary matter
014 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Worsham   2014-10-02   Attorney disciplinary matter
016
2014 Allen, Traimne Martinez State 2013-12-20 2014-10-02  

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  

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]

028 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Barnett   2014-10-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
018
2014 Williams Peninsula Regional Med. Ctr. 2013-12-20 2014-10-03  

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   Attorney disciplinary matter
013
2014 Peterson, Jerrod M. State 2013-12-20 2014-10-06  

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  

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   Attorney disciplinary matter
061 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Hodes   2014-10-07   Attorney disciplinary matter
015
2014 State Stachowski, Kenneth Martin, Jr. 2013-12-20 2014-10-04  

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   DNA Appeal
3 Misc.
2014 Application of Oldenbourg for Admission to the Bar of Md.     2014-11-06   Show cause
4 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Chang   2014-11-06   Attorney disciplinary matter
7 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Mixter   2014-11-06   Attorney disciplinary matter
20
2014 McCree State 2014-01-24 2014-11-06  

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]

38 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Lewis   2014-11-07   Attorney disciplinary matter
23
2014 Oglesby State 2014-01-24 2014-11-07  

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)

26
2014 Kelly Duvall 2014-02-21 2014-11-07  

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

22
2014 Simpson State 2014-01-24 2014-11-07  

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. 2833, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

3 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Smith   2014-11-10   Attorney disciplinary matter
21
2014 People's Insurance Counsel Div. State Farm Fire & Casualty 2014-01-24 2014-11-10  

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]

25
2014 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300 & McClure Lovelace 2014-02-21 2014-11-10  

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]

19
2014 Rounds M-NCPPC 2013-12-20 2014-11-12  

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]

32 & 46 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Green   2011-11-12   Attorney disciplinary matter
27
2014 Cunningham Feinberg 2014-02-21 2011-11-12  

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