Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2008

 

Denied September 12, 2008

Adams v. Patel - Pet. Docket No. 255
Bagheri v. Montgomery County - Pet. Docket No.245
Bailey, Artie Leon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 244
Blanks, Richard Lavonte v. State - Pet. Docket No. 14 (motion for reconsideration).
Board of Education v. Horace Mann - Pet. Docket No. 261
Brenna v. Cecil Investments - Pet. Docket No. 68
Burton, Kenneth E. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 259
Carlton, Robert B. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 273
Carmichael, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 284
Chapman, Eric v. State - Pet. Docket No. 231
Cowles v. Walsh - Pet. Docket No. 254
Curtis v. Warden- Pet. Docket No. 267
Diggs, Miguel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 291
Dildar v. Pickens - Pet. Docket No. 126
Ezunagu v. Ike-Ezunagu - Pet. Docket No. 280
Fortune Parc v. Rockville - Pet. Docket No. 236
Foster v. Gazunis - Pet. Docket No. 287
Gilbert v. Mann - Pet. Docket No. 33
Goldman, Skeen v. Cooper & Tuerk - Pet. Docket No. 196 (on motion for reconsideration).
Greene, Antoine M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 271
Gross-Bey v. Friedman - Pet. Docket No. 274
Halici v. Gaithersburg - Pet. Docket No. 249
Hanna, Matthew v. State - Pet. Docket No. 281
Hargett Farm v. Frederick - Pet. Docket No. 266
Helms, Jerry A. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 282
Huang v. Culbertson - Pet. Docket No. 269
Hunt v. Sniffen - Pet. Docket No. 580* (motion for reconsideration)
In Re: Zechariah C. - Pet. Docket No. 65
Jeter, Leroy III v. State - Pet. Docket No. 272
Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 157 (motion for reconsideration).
Jones, James D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 55
Khalid v. College Avenue Station - Pet. Docket No. 20
Kolawole v Unifund - Pet. Docket No. 233
Levy v. New Carrollton - Pet. Docket No. 56
Loose, Thomas M. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 32
Macard v. Arsenault - Pet. Docket No. 277
McCleary, Richard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 251
Mccready v. Long Fence - Pet. Docket No. 243
Milgram v. Anne Arundel County - Pet. Docket No. 276
Moore, Donald E. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 252
Moore v. Moore - Pet. Docket No. 285
Osborn v. Renehan - Pet. Docket No. 232
Perez, Robert A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 113 (motion for reconsideration)
Ricks v. Cole - Pet. Docket No. 100 (motion for reconsideration)
Santos v. Pomenya - Pet. Docket No. 257
Scott, James P. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 283
Siler, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 264
Singley v. Frederick County - Pet. Docket No. 214
Snyder v. Swanson - Pet. Docket No. 265
State v. Stanford Wilson - Pet. Docket No. 279
Turner v. Araia - Pet. Docket No. 36 (motion for reconsideration)
Washington, Michael D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 258
Yingling v. Millenium - Pet. Docket No. 275
Youngblud v. Fallston Supply - Pet. Docket No. 263

 

Granted September 11, 2008

Int'l Assoc. of Fire Fighters Local 1715, Cumberland Firefighters, et al. v. The Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, et al. - Case No. 22, September Term 2008.

 

Granted September 10, 2008

James A. Thompson v. State of Maryland - Case No. 78, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - DNA EVIDENCE - (1) WHETHER POST CONVICTION COURT FAILED TO USE PROPER STANDARD FOR EVALUATING NEWLY DISCOVERED DNA EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO MCCP SECTION 8-201? (2) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED DNA TESTING RESULTS?

Ofir Marwani, et al. v. Catering by Uptown - Case No. 79, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - MAY A FOOD SERVICE FACILITY ENFORCE A CONTRACT WITH CONSUMERS EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 21–305(a) OF TITLE 21 OF THE HEALTH-GENERAL ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, AND THE CONTRACT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE REQUISITE DISCLOSURES UNDER H-G SECTION 21-312.1(b)?

Juan Rivera v. State of Maryland - Case No. 80, September Term 2008. (petition and cross-petition).

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ACCEPTING A GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT A FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT IT AND DID THE CSA IN RULING THAT A FACTUAL STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A GUILTY PLEA NEED NOT CONFORM TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLEADS GUILTY?

Darren Gerard Kamp v. Department of Human Services, Garrett County Department of Social Services, Bureau of Support Enforcement, ex rel. Vicki Jo Duckworth - Case No. 81, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - DNA TESTING - (1) MAY THE TRIAL COURT ORDER DNA TESTING IN A POST DIVORCE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE BIOLOGICAL PATERNITY OF A CHILD BORN OR CONCEIVED DURING A MARRIAGE? (2) CAN SUCH DNA TESTING BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY ARGUE FOR THE TERMINATION OF CHILD SUPPORT?

State of Maryland v. Jermaine Carroll Camper - Case No. 82, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY REMAND THIS CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD FAILED TO ADVISE RESPONDENT OF THE MANDATORY PENALTIES BEFORE FINDING WAIVER OF COUNSEL BY INACTION?

Lynne Parry, Persoal Representative of the Estate of Mark Parry, deceasedm et al. v. Allstate Insurance Com. - Case No. 83, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT TO ALLOW AN INSURANCE COMPANY DEDUCTIONS FROM AN UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED POLICY FOR UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL EXPENSES PAID BY AN EMPLOYER WHEN NO WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM WAS ACTUALLY FILED BY THE EMPLOYEE, ELIMINATES THE CHOICE OF REMEDY RIGHT AFFORDED TO INJURED WORKERS BY STATUTE?

Thomas W. Nodeen, et ux. v. Anja Sigurdsson - Case No. 84, September Term 2008. (petition and cross-petition).

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - DOES MARYLAND RULE 2-327(C) PROHIBIT THE CHANGE OF VENUE FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES FROM THE COUNTY WHERE MOTHER RESIDES TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE CASE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TRIED AND CUSTODY GRANTED THE CUSTODIANS, ALBEIT THAT THE CUSTODIANS, MOTHER AND MINOR CHILD NO LONGER RESIDE IN THAT COUNTY?

John Grady, et al. v. Darin Donell Brown - Case No. 85, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT A JURY QUESTION WAS PRESENTED AS TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH THAT COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PLAINTIFF BELOW WAS THE FAVORED DRIVER ON THE BOULEVARD, THE DEFENDANT WAS THE UNFAVORED MOTORIST, AND ALSO FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT DID DRIVE HIS VEHICLE INTO THE ROADWAY?

People's Insurance Counsel Division v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. - Case No. 86, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - INSURANCE - WHETHER THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AUTHORIZED THE PEOPLE’S INSURANCE COUNSEL DIVISION TO FILE A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM A FINAL DECISION OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER?