Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2007

 

Denied June 20, 2008

Abrishamian v. Dept. of Health - Pet. Docket No. 140*
Ali, Raza v. State - Pet. Docket No. 108*
Allen v. Baltimore County - Pet. Docket No. 138*
Alloy v. Wills Family - Pet. Docket No. 137*
Asemani, Billy G. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 95*
Bethea v. Comsource - Pet. Docket No. 99*
Brown v. Beltway Title - Pet. Docket No. 133*
Chan v. Liu - Pet. Docket No. 156*
Coby v. Pasadena Receivables - Pet. Docket No. 134*
George v. Church-Purnell - Pet. Docket No. 168*
George v. Royal Financial - Pet. Docket No. 142*
Gonzalez, Tomas v. State - Pet. Docket No. 92*
Gross, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 102*
Ham v. Dept. of Public Safety - Pet. Docket No. 117*
Hickory One v. 1604 Conowingo Road - Pet. Docket No. 141*
Hill v. Walrath - Pet. Docket No. 118 *
Himes v. Anderson - Pet. Docket No. 88*
Hunter, Steven v. State - Pet. Docket No. 123*
In Re: Lawrence H. - Pet. Docket No. 103*
Johnson, Brandon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 104*
Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 581 (motion for reconsideration)
Keeler v. American Franciscan History - Pet. Docket No. 96*
Laidlaw, Bruce William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 132*
Linton, Sewad v. State - Pet. Docket No. 121*
Manokey, Kenneth C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 139*
Nichols v. State Teachers - Pet. Docket No. 114*
Norfolk Southern v. Tiller - Pet. Docket No. 135*
Paige, Dwayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 116*
Parrish v. Parrish - Pet. Docket No. 544 (motion for reconsideration)
Perez, Robert Angel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 113*
Pettiford, John Thomas v. State - Pet. Docket No. 111*
Phillips v. Hall - Pet. Docket No. 3*
Pratt, Michael L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 107*
Ream v. Ream - Pet. Docket No. 97*
Ricks v. Cole - Pet. Docket No. 100
Riddix v. Baltimore - Pet. Docket No. 554* (motion for reconsideration)
Scott, Markham A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 124*
State v. Roberto D. Puento - Pet. Docket No. 89*
University Gardens v. Prince George's County - Pet. Docket No. 115*
White v. Dr. Greenstein, et al. - Pet. Docket No. 34*
Wilson-Bey, Herbert v. State - Pet. Docket No. 120 *
Zia, Muhammed v. State - Pet. Docket No. 108*



* September Term 2008

 

Granted June 19, 2008

Dion G. Tucker v. State - Case No. 35, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FORMULATING A JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING CROSS-RACE IDENTIFICATION?

Supervisor of Assessments v. Stellar GT - Case No. 36, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - TAX AND ASSESSMENTS - WHEN VALUE OF PROPERTY HAS INCREASED BY MORE THAN $50,000 BECAUSE OF RENOVATIONS IN PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR AND THIS INCREASE IS NOT CAPTURED IN EXISTING ASSESSMENT, IS THE SECTION 8-104(c) MANDATE TO REVALUE THE PROPERTY AT A NEW VALUE NEGATED WHEN SUPERVISOR’S REVIEW OF PROPERTY WAS PROMPTED BY A RECENT SALE OR ASSESSOR HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF RENOVATIONS AT TIME OF THE LAST TRIENNIAL ASSESSMENT?

James Desmond Jones v. State - Case No. 37, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT THE MERE POSTING OF A “NO TRESPASSING” SIGN DID NOT PROHIBIT POLICE OFFICERS FROM APPROACHING AND KNOCKING ON PETITIONER’S FRONT DOOR? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT POLICE OFFICERS CONDUCTED A LAWFUL CONSENT SEARCH OF PETITIONER’S PROPERTY?

University Systems of Maryland v. Kevin Mooney and Teresa Mooney - Case No. 38, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - (1) DOES DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BAR RESPONDENTS’ CLAIM AS ASSIGNEE OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS AGAINST THE STATE? (2) IF RESPONDENTS PURSUE A CONTRACT-BASED CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE, MUST IT BE PRESENTED ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR REVIEW BY AGENCY AND MD BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS?

Tamara A. v. Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services - Case No. 39, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT TRIAL COURT POSSESSED JURISDICTION, POWER OR AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO CODE SG SECTION 10-222(b) TO REACH THE MERITS OF RESPONDENT’S INTERLOCUTORY PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW?

Maurice Darryl Prioleau v. State of Maryland - Case No. 40, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURTS CORRECTLY HOLD THAT A POLICE OFFICER’S USE OF THE GREETING “WHAT’S UP,” DID NOT CONSTITUTE INTERROGATION FOR MIRANDA PURPOSES?

Robert Alan Odum, Jr. v. State of Maryland - Case No. 41, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS IT ERROR TO ALLOW AT THE RETRIAL EVIDENCE OF THE MANY OTHER FELONIES AND CRIMES OF VIOLENCE OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS ACQUITTED BY A JURY AT HIS FIRST TRIAL?

Arthur Franklin White, Jr. v. State of Maryland - Case No. 42, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID LOWER COURT ERR IN REVERSING SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THIS CASE AFTER RECOGNIZING PLAIN ERROR BY TRIAL COURT IN ITS JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND FINDING PLAIN ERROR IN CLOSING ARGUMENT WHERE THE PROSECUTOR URGED THE JURY TO FIND PETITIONER GUILTY BECAUSE A D.C. JURY WOULD NOT DO SO? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT LACK TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY PETITIONER FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER, ARMED ROBBERY AND RELATED OFFENSES BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE CRIMES OCCURRED IN MARYLAND?

Darryl King v. State of Maryland - Case No. 43, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURTS APPLY AN ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARD IN DETERMINING THAT A PRIOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTION WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO IMPEACH A PROSECUTION WITNESS? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT IMPROPERLY RULE THAT THE PROSECUTOR’S REFERENCE TO PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE REVERSIBLE ERROR?

Charles Henry Decker v. State of Maryland - Case No. 44, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER WALKED OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE ON A PRIOR TRIAL DATE BEFORE THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR TRIAL?

State of Maryland v. Paul Benjamin Blackwell - Case No. 45, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT INCORRECTLY APPLY RAGLAND V. STATE, 385 Md. 706 (2005) WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HE OBSERVED WHEN HE ADMINISTERED AN HGN TEST TO RESPONDENT AND INCORRECTLY FAIL TO CONSIDER THE “COLLECTIVE EFFECT OF OTHER EVIDENCE”?

Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Connie J. Kellerman - Case No. 46, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DID A STATISTICAL AWARD GIVE THE CLAIMANT A VESTED RIGHT TO ALL TYPES OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS?

F.D.R. Srour Partnership and Robert Srour v. Montgomery County, Maryland - Case No. 47, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - TAXATION - DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY APPLY ORDINARY PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION TO INTERPRET THE IMPACT TAX STATUTE AND TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL INTENDED THE IMPACT TAX TO APPLY TO WAREHOUSE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED TO PETITIONERS?

Jonathan G. Newell and State of Maryland v. Susan Runnels, et al. - Case No. 48, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DOES FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIRE NEWLY ELECTED HEAD OF A SMALL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE TO RETAIN EMPLOYEES WHO ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE PROSECUTOR’S POLITICAL OPPONENT?

120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. - Case No. 49, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DOES PETITIONER, A TAXPAYER LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM A VAST, COSTLY RENEWAL PROJECT, HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE PROJECT?

Phillip C. Sinicrope v. Linda M. Sinicrope - Case No. 50, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY RESPONDENT PENDENTE LITE ALIMONY AND SUIT MONEY GIVEN THAT BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR CHILD CONTINUE TO LIVE TOGETHER AS A FAMILY IN THE MARITAL HOME AND HAVE NO IMMEDIATE PLANS TO SEPARATE?

William Langley v. State of Maryland - Case No. 51, September Term 2008

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE ADMISSION OF A RECORDING OF A 911 CALL VIOLATE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WHERE THE CALL WAS PLACED AFTER THE OFFENSE HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR HAD LEFT THE SCENE AND THE CALLER INDICATED THAT SHE WAS AWARE THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED AND WERE IN THE PROCESS OF RESPONDING?

 

Denied June 13, 2008

Abrishamian v. Henriquez - Pet. Docket No. 70*
Allen v. Allen - Pet. Docket No. 39*
Allen, Jeffrey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 41*
Banister v. Santos - Pet. Docket No. 305
Brown v. Handgun Review - Pet. Docket No. 90*
Bruce, Calvin Wayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 83*
Congressional Hotel v. Mervis - Pet. Docket No. 53*
County Commissioners v. Forty West - Pet. Docket No. 45*
DeShields, William Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 84*
Dukes, Dwight v. State - Pet. Docket No. 27*
Green, Terrence A. v. State - Pet. Docket No.423
Griffin, Raymond v. State - Pet. Docket No. 48*
Hargrave, Roger Byron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 503 (motion for reconsideration)
Harris, Anthony D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 42*
Hess Construction v. Norwood School - Pet. Docket No. 58*
Housing Authority v. Roy - Pet. Docket No. 52*
In Re: Adoption of Aniyah S. - Pet. Docket No. 490
Jerome v. Jerome - Pet. Docket No. 47*
Jones, Raymond E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 51*
Jones v. Rosenberg - Pet. Docket No. 29*
Jones-Harris, Charelles L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 66*
Jungo, Raymond v. State - Pet. Docket No. 78*
Levy v. New Carrollton - Pet. Docket No. 56*
Lewis, Willis Pierre v. State - Pet. Docket No. 73*
Martell v. Martell - Pet. Docket No. 59*
Martin, Rynell P. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 44* (petition and cross-petition denied)
McGee, James C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 72*
McMillan, James Merle v. State - Pet. Docket No. 85*
Milam v. Malone - Pet. Docket No. 536
Moore, Phillip v. State - Pet. Docket No. 37*
Neuben v. Gudelsky - Pet. Docket No. 63*
Newton, Donta v. State - Pet. Docket No. 67*
Parr v. Baltimore County Police - Pet. Docket No. 38*
Pharr, Larry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 46*
Roberts, Robert D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 57*
Sanders v. Rhodes - Pet. Docket No. 514 (motion for reconsideration)
Sin v. Yang - Pet. Docket No. 339*
Smith v. Friedman - Pet. Docket No. 504 (motion for reconsideration)
Spears v. Stankevich - Pet. Docket No. 75*
State v. Philip Morris - Pet. Docket No. 76*
Sutphin v. Unifund - Pet. Docket No. 64*
Turner, Andrew W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 50*
Turner v. Araia - Pet. Docket No. 36*
Turner v. Turner - Pet. Docket No. 25*
Van Der Hayden v. Neuberger - Pet. Docket No. 26*
Vinson, James E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 31*


* September Term 2008

 

Granted June 12, 2008

William K. Shaffer v. State of Maryland - Case No. 29, September Term 2008.

Darren Joseph Tate v. State of Maryland - Case No. 34, September Term 2008.

 

Granted June 11, 2008

Pines Point Marina, A Condominium Council of Unit Owners, Inc. v. Jim Rehak, et al. - Case No. 22, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT COMPLAINT WAS A NULLITY AND AS SUCH INEFFECTIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TOLLING THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?

Richard L. Kramer v. Liberty Property Trust f/k/a Republic Property Trust - Case No. 23, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT AN ACTION TO REMOVE A TRUSTEE FROM THE BOARD OF A MARYLAND REIT FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS NOT A “PROCEEDING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2-418 OF THE MARYLAND CODE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE HE WAS “MADE A PARTY TO A PROCEEDING BY REASON OF SUCH STATUS” AS A TRUSTEE AND OFFICER?

Ramon Lopez v. State of Maryland - Case No. 24, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT FIND THAT PETITIONER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL MIDWAY THROUGH TRIAL WAS KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN ADVISED OF THE SENTENCE HE COULD RECEIVE AS A SUBSEQUENT OFFENDER?

In Re: Joseph N. - Case No. 28, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CINA - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S APPEAL AS MOOT BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT NOTED AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ISSUED AT A SUBSEQUENT REVIEW HEARING, WHEN THAT ORDER DID NOT CHANGE THE TERMS OF ANTECEDENT ORDER AND THUS WAS NOT APPEALABLE UNDER THE In Re: Billy W. LINE OF CASES?

Rishi Gosain, et al. v. County Council for Prince George's County, Maryland sitting as the District Council, et al. - Case No. 26, September Term 2008. (petition and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUE - ZONING - WAS PETITIONER AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 8-106(e) OF ARTICLE 28 TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL DISTRICT COUNCIL DECISION, AS A “PERSON OR TAXPAYER IN PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,” WHEN PETITIONER DOES NOT RESIDE IN, OWN PROPERTY IN, OR PAY TAXES IN COUNTY?

Trinity Assembly of God of Baltimore City, Inc. v. People's Counsel for Baltimore County, et al. - Case No. 27, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - ZONING - DID THE BOARD ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED USE CONSTITUTES RELIGIOUS EXERCISE, BUT FOUND COMPELLING INTERESTS EXIST WHICH PRESENT NO SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE?

Patrick G. McKenzie v. State of Maryland - Case No. 28, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE PETITIONER OF FOURTH DEGREE BURGLARY OF A DWELLING WHERE THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONER BROKE AND ENTERED AN UNFURNISHED, VACANT APARTMENT WHICH, AT THE TIME OF THE BREAKING, WAS UNOCCUPIED?

State of Maryland v. Dennis Lamont Lucas - Case No. 30, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT INCORRECTLY HOLD THAT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM’S EXCITED UTTERANCES MADE TO FIRST RESPONDING POLICE OFFICERS WERE TESTIMONIAL UNDER CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) AND ITS PROGENY?

Rory Howard Washington v. State of Maryland - Case No. 31, September Term 2008. (petition and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING A DETECTIVE TO RELATE HIS OBSERVATIONS REGARDING A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND STILL PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXPRESSLY PRECLUDING THE DETECTIVE FROM IDENTIFYING PETITIONER AS A PERSON SEEN ON THE VIDEO?

Crofton Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Nursing Home Appeal Board - Case No. 32, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - DOES THRIFTY OIL CO. V. BANK OF AM. NAT’L TRUST & SAV. ASS’N, 310 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2002) ESTABLISH MARYLAND LAW GOVERNING WHETHER INTEREST PAID BY A NURSING FACILITY PURSUANT TO A SWAP AGREEMENT THAT SECURES THE FACILITY’S REAL PROPERTY IS MORTGAGE INTEREST UNDER THE MARYLAND MEDICAID REGULATION MAKING MORTGAGE INTEREST AN ALLOWABLE, REIMBURSED COST?

Steve Anthony Powell v. State of Maryland - Case No. 33, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW – DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GRANT A MISTRIAL ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE?

 

Denied June 5, 2008

Addison v. Lochearn Nursing Home - Pet. Docket No. 162*
In the Matter of Dorothy Dier - Pet. Docket No. 158*


* September Term 2008

 

Denied June 3, 2008

Maryland Family Child Care v. State - Pet. Docket No. 143*


* September Term 2008