Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2008

 

Denied December 30, 2008

All Brands v. Rose - Pet. Docket No. 474
Allen v. Allen - Pet. Docket No. 441
Andochick v. Lee - Pet. Docket No. 479
Alternatives v. Brown - Pet. Docket No. 430
Bailey, William M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 465
Baltimore v. Winaker - Pet. Docket No. 458
Barone, David W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 484
Brown, Corey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 480
Bowers, Jerome J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 454
Burrell, Devin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 489
Bush, Ramsey Nolan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 414
Cloisters v. Garfink - Pet. Docket No. 487
Correll v. Correll - Pet. Docket No. 491
Davis, Quan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 417
Dogget, Jermaine v. State - Pet. Docket No. 422
Farmer, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No, 473 and cross-petition
Farrell v. Mazer - Pet. Docket Np. 434 (motion for reconsideration)
Gnahoua v. Gnahoua - Pet. Docket No. 442
Gregory v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 450
Eastern Shore Gas v. IWIF - Pet. Docket No. 470
Fooks, Wendy Lou v. State - Pet. Docket No. 483
Gibson v. Mayo - Pet. Docket No. 472
Guild v. Palisades - Pet. Docket No. 498
Haviland v. GEICO - Pet. Docket No. 396
Hawkins v. Citibank - Pet. Docket No. 418 and cross-petition
Henson v. Henson - Pet. Docket No. 241 (motion for recosideration)
In Re: Adoption of Kaitlyn H. - Pet. Docket No. 443
In Re: Adoption of Tyona B. - Pet. Docket No. 431
Johnson, Terrell E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 449
Lott, William Boom v. State - Pet. Docket No. 490
Matthews, Michael L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 424
Melby, Paul W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 429
Mercer v. Chervenak - Pet. Docket No. 351 (motion for reconsideration)
Metropolitan OB/GYN v. King - Pet. Docket No. 457
Moonblatt v CACH - Pet. Docket No. 497
Moss, Nathaniel III v. State - Pet. Docket No. 455
Napata v. UMMS - Pet. Docket No. 456
Oltman v. Board of Physicians - Pet. Docket No. 440
Owens v Social Services - Pet. Docket No. 448
Potomac Land v. Park & Planning - Pet. Docket No. 461
Price v. State Farm - Pet. Docket No. 478
Ridgely v. Clipper - Pet. Docket No. 453
Robinson v. S.T. Corp - Pet. Docket No. 460
Rollins v. Capital Plaza - Pet. Docket No. 432
Rollins, Tonya H. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 444
Rudder, Isaih M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 438 and cross-petition
Ruiz, Jose Luiz v. State - Pet. Docket No. 413
Semtek v. Lockheed Martin - Pet. Docket No. 467
Shafer, Philip M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 481
Skinner v. Unifund - Pet. Docket No. 423
Staggs v. Stouffer - Pet. Docket No. 408
Tatte, Darren J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 476
Templeton, Tommy L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 385
Tibbs v. Green - Pet. Docket No. 447
Willkins, Jerome v. State - Pet. Docket No. 462
Witherspoon v. Hammond - Pet. Docket No. 421
Board of Education v. Beka - Pet. Docket No. 555
Worsham v. Ehrlich - Pet. Docket No. 446
Young-Bey v. Public Defender - Pet. Docket No. 466

 

Granted December 19, 2008

Stephen H. Rogers v. Eastport Yachting Center, LLC, et al No. 123, September Term 2008

ISSUES - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - (1) WHETHER THE PORT WARDENS’ DECISION IS VOID AD INITIO DUE TO FAILURE TO GIVE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE HEARING? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FAILING TO STRIKE THE PORT WARDEN’S VOID DECISION?

Aronson & Company v. Ellen Fetridge, et al., Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Keith R. Fetridge - No. 124, September Term 2008

ISSUES - LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW - WAGE ACT - (1) DOES MARYLAND LAW ALLOW THE FORMER PRESIDENT, MANAGING OFFICER AND SHAREHOLDER OF AN ACCOUNTING FIRM TO RECOVER PAYMENTS DUE UNDER A WRITTEN CONTRACT WHEN (A) THE PAYMENTS DO NOT REPRESENT WAGES BUT INSTEAD THE DIVISION OF THE FIRM’S PROFITS AMONG ITS PRINCIPALS? (B) THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT DUE AS EARNED, BUT ARE DUE ONLY UPON TERMINATION? (C) THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT UNCONDITIONAL WAGES, BUT PAYMENTS DEPENDENT UPON THE EXECUTIVE’S COMPLIANCE WITH A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE FOLLOWING TERMINATION? (D) THE EXECUTIVE MADE NO DEMAND FOR PAYMENT IN THE MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER HE WAS TERMINATED? (2) CAN A NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER BE USED TO BACK DATE THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT TO UNDO A PRIOR DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT RATHER THAN CORRECT A CLERICAL ERROR?

Tavon Bomas a/k/a/ Tavon Bomar v. State of Maryland - Case No. 125, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) SHOULD A TRIAL COURT’S DECISION WHETHER TO ADMIT EXPERT TESTIMONY CONTINUE TO BE A MATTER WITHIN ITS DISCRETION? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT A DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL TO THE JURY IN EVALUATING THE IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER BY A DETECTIVE?

Karl Lymont Thompson v. State - Case No. 126, September Term 2008

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINE THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULT BY THE DEFENDANT AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINE THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE TRIAL COURT’S DISCRETION TO AMEND AN INDICTMENT ALTERING THE DATE AND LOCATION OF PETITIONER’S CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST A MINOR?

Marvie Edward Brye v. State - Case No. 127, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY DETERMINE THERE WAS NO REVERSIBLE ERROR WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIAL COURT’S ADVISEMENTS PRIOR TO PETITIONER’S DISCHARGE OF COUNSEL?

Lisa Meade v. Shangri-La Partnership and a Business t/a/ & d/b/a Children's Montessori School - Case No. 128, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) SHOULD MARYLAND COURTS RESTRICTIVELY INTERPRET A COUNTY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PARI MATERIA WITH THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN LIGHT OF SUTTON v. UNITED AIR LINES, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) AND TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. v. WILLIAMS, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) WHERE CONGRESS HAS DECLARED THAT SUTTON AND TOYOTA MOTOR MFG. ARE CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT AND MEANING OF THE ADA AND HAS LEGISLATIVELY OVERRULED THOSE DECISIONS? (2) SHOULD MARYLAND COURTS CONSTRUING REMEDIAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY OR HANDICAP REJECT THE TERMS “SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS” AND “MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY” IN THE DEFINITION OF DISABILITY UNDER THE ADA “NEED TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY TO CREATE A DEMANDING STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING AS DISABLED”?

CSR, Limited v. Andrea Taylor, et al. - Case No. 129, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD SUFFICIENT CONTACTS IN THE STATE TO SUPPORT THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONER WOULD NOT OFFEND TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE?

University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, et al. v. Rebecca Marie Waldt, et al. - Case No. 130, September Term 2008 (and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - (1) DID THE LEGISLATURE INTEND TO EXCLUDE PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES WHERE 100% OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY INVOLVE TESTIMONY IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS? (2) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE STATUTE TO ADVANCE THE STATED PUBLIC POLICY BY FINDING THAT A PROFESSIONAL WITNESS DEVOTED MORE THAN 20% OF HIS PROFESSIONAL TIME TO ACTIVITIES THAT DIRECTLY INVOLVE TESTIMONY IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS?

Zi'Tasha Jackson, a minor, et al. v. The Dackman Company, et al. - Case No. 131, September Term 2008 (and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - COMMERCIAL - LEAD PAINT ACT - (1) IS THE REDUCTION OF LEAD IN HOUSING ACT CONSTITUTIONAL? (2) DOES THE ACT APPLY TO CLAIMS WHERE A CHILD’S BLOOD-LEAD LEVEL NEVER REACHED THE APPLICABLE THRESHOLD? (3) DOES THE ACT PROVIDE LANDLORD WITH IMMUNITY FROM A LEAD-POISONED CHILD’S CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER MARYLAND’S CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT? (4) WHETHER UNDER MD. CODE ANN., ENV’T. SECTION 6-801 ET SEQ. (2008) RENEWAL OF A PROPERTY REGISTRATION IS COMPLETE UPON MAILING THE RENEWAL FORM TO MDE?

Nathaniel Paul McMillan v. State - Case No. 132, September Term 2008 (and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE EVIDENCE FAIL TO GENERATE AN INSTRUCTION ON THE DEFENSE OF DURESS? (2) WAS THE DEFENSE OF DURESS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE FELONY MURDER CHARGE IN THIS CASE?

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Adam Leigh Shea - Case No. 133, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - DOES A POLICE OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION THAT A MODERATE ODOR OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WAS OF SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO SUSPECT THAT A MOTORIST WAS DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL, ALONG WITH SUBSEQUENT FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS THAT LED TO THE DRIVER’S ARREST, ALLOW AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO FIND REASONABLE GROUNDS TO REQUEST AN ALCOHOL CONTENT TEST UNDER TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE SECTION 16-205(b)(2), WITHOUT APPLICATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT STANDARDS TO EVALUATE THE SUFFICIENCY OF A POLICE OFFICER’S REASONABLE GROUNDS?

Beulah Addison v. Lochearn Nursing Home, LLC d/b/a Future Care-Lochearn - Case No. 134, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - TORT LAW - CONTRACT - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS ARISING FROM A PREDATORY REAL ESTATE SCAM AND SABOTAGED MEDICAID APPLICATION?

Paul Antoine Baines v. State - Case No. 135, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - ALFORD PLEA - DID THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT CONFORM TO THE PLEA AGREEMENT?

Raymond B. Cuffley, Jr. v. State - Case No. 136, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CORRECT ILLEGAL SENTENCE?

Dylan McQuitty, a minor, etc., et al. v. Donald Spangler, et al. - Case No. 137, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - (1) DOES AN INFORMED CONSENT CLAIM EXIST UNDER MARYLAND LAW WHERE A PHYSICIAN WITHHOLDS MATERIAL INFORMATION FROM HIS PATIENT ABOUT CHANGES IN HER MEDICAL STATUS, WHICH WOULD HAVE NEGATED HER CONSENT TO FURTHER DELAY IN OPERATIVE TREATMENT CAUSING HARM? (2) DOES AN INFORMED CONSENT CLAIM EXIST UNDER MARYLAND LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY A BATTERY COMMITTED BY THE PHYSICIAN?

Rodney Wayne Bible v. State - Case No. 138, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER’S CONVICTIONS FOR THIRD DEGREE SEX OFFENSE AND RELATED CRIMES?

Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Maryland Department of the Environment - Case No. 139, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - ENVIRONMENT - COMAR - (1) DID THE LOWER COURTS VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE BY PERMITTING MDE TO APPLY DECIBEL LEVEL LIMITS TO ONLY ONE SPORTSHOOTING CLUB IN ALLEGANY COUNTY AND THE MAJORITY OF THE STATE’S POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS? (2) DID THE LOWER COURTS COMMIT LEGAL ERROR BY FINDING THAT ENVIRONMENT ARTICLE SECTION 3-401 AS WRITTEN APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER WITHOUT REQUIRING MDE TO ADOPT NEW DECIBEL LEVEL LIMITS OR REGULATIONS?

M'Hamed Kortobi v. Brian L. Kass, Personal Representative of the Estate of Carver James Leach, Jr., et al. - Case No. 140, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - WHETHER MARYLAND COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A FOREIGN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE SUED IN MARYLAND WHERE THE FOREIGN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED IN MARYLAND?

State v. James Earl Goldsberry, Jr. - Case No. 141, September Term 2008 (and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY RULING THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE PATTERN INSTRUCTION ON SECOND DEGREE FELONY MURDER WHEN THE FELONY UNDERLYING THE MURDER IS AN ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S MODIFIED UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION COULD HAVE COERCED THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS?

Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, et al. v. Herschell B. Claggett, Sr. - Case No. 142, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - AGRICULTURE - DO THE REQUIREMENTS OF MD. CODE ANN., AGRICULTURE SECTION 2-513(b) AS AMENDED BY 2004 LAWS OF MARYLAND, CHAPTER 498, APPLY TO A FINAL RELEASE FROM LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING FOR THE USE OF THE LANDOWNER, WHICH THE LANDOWNER REQUESTED IN 2005?

Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland - Case No. 143, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - ZONING - WHERE MRA WOULD BE ENTIRELY PRECLUDED WITHOUT THE GRANT OF “AREA” VARIANCES FROM ESTABLISHING A RUBBLE LANDFILL USE WHICH IS PERMITTED ON ITS PROPERTY BY RIGHT WITHIN THE HARFORD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, DID THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS MISAPPLY THE “PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY” AND/OR “UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP” VARIANCE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE HARFORD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEN THE BOARD REFUSED TO GRANT REQUESTED VARIANCES?

Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland - Case No. 144, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - ZONING - IS HARFORD COUNTY PREEMPTED BY LAW FROM APPLYING NEWLY ENACTED ZONING REGULATION BILL 91-10 TO MRA’S PROPERTY GIVEN THAT BILL 91-10 WAS ENACTED AND PURPORTEDLY APPLIED TO MRA’S PROPERTY AFTER HARFORD COUNTY ZONING AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVALS HAD BEEN GIVEN TO MRA’S RUBBLE LANDFILL APPLICATION DURING PHASE 1 OF THE STATE RUBBLE LANDFILL PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS?

John Wesley Ray v. Secretary Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services - Case No. 145, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING “EXTRAORDINARY CAUSE” TO REFUSE TO DISMISS AN INCOMPETENT DEFENDANT’S CHARGES WITHOUT ANY “EXTRAORDINARY” PREDICATE?

Joseph D. Miller v. Amanda Lee Mathias - Case No. 146, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - DO THE PROVISIONS OF MD. FAMILY LAW CODE ANN., SECTION 9.5-207 REGARDING “INCONVENIENT FORUM” APPLY WHERE (1) THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A MARYLAND CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION, (2) IT IS CONCEDED THAT MARYLAND HAS “CONTINUING, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” OVER THAT DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO MD. FAMILY LAW CODE ANN., SECTION 9.5-202, AND (3) NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO “CONTINUING, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” HAVE BEEN MET?

Damon Lamar Ramsey v. State - Case No. 147, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATE APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO A FAIR TRIAL WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE ACTED AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR AND CREATED A HOSTILE COURTROOM ENVIRONMENT FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL IN FRONT OF THE JURY, ALL OF WHICH SUGGESTED EXTREME BIAS AGAINST THE DEFENSE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATE APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSER WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE PREVENTED DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM CHALLENGING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ONLY POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY AGAINST APPELLANT?

Alisa Marie Gauvin v. State - Case No. 148, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT PERMITTED AN EXPERT WITNESS TO STATE AN OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT POSSESSED PCP WITH AN INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE?

Adelaida Maria Tarray v. State - Case No. 149, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - IS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS FOR EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AND CONSPIRACY TO EXPLOIT A VULNERABLE ADULT?

Robert Scrimgeour v. Stacey Smith - Case No. 150, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ZONING - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW BY AFFIRMING THE TALBOT COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS’ DECISION THAT THE STRUCTURE PROPOSED BY THE APPELLEE IS PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS EITHER AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL OR ACCESSORY AGRICULTURE USE OR STRUCTURE PURSUANT TO THE TALBOT COUNTY ZONING CODE?

Rahim Hariri, et al. v. Edward C. Dahne, et al. - Case No. 151, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 2-507(b) TO DISMISS A CASE WITH PREJUDICE?

Jung Chul Park v. Cangen Corporation - Case No. 152, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OVER APPELLANT’S INVOCATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?

Questar Builders, Inc. v. C.B. Flooring, LLC - Case No. 153, September Term 2008.

ISSUES - CONTRACT - (1) WHETHER A “TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE” CLAUSE CONTAINED A A CONTRACT BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES IS ENFORCEABLE UNDER MARYLAND LAW? (2) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE PARTIES’ “TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE” CLAUSE WAS INAPPLICABLE AND DID NOT ALLOW APPELLANT TO TERMINATE THE PARTIES’ SUBCONTRACT WITHOUT CAUSE?

James K. Sillers v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission / Allen W. Cartwright, Jr. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission - Case No. 154, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - EMPLOYMENT - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLEE, WHICH IS A STATE AGENCY, IS NOT SUBJECT TO CIVIL ACTION UNDER MD. CODE, ART. 49B, SECTION 42?

Robert M. Higginbotham, II v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, et al. - Case No. 155, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - TORT LAW - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - DOES MARYLAND STATE GOVERNMENT ARTICLE SECTION 12-105(B)(3), WHICH REQUIRES THAT AN ACTION UNDER THE MARYLAND TORT CLAIMS ACT BE FILED WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES, CREATE A UNIFORM THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ALL TORT ACTIONS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE ACT, INCLUDING DEFAMATION CLAIMS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN MARYLAND COURTS & JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARTICLE SECTION 5-105?

Sharon Roosevelt v. Mehmet Yavuz Corapcioglu - Case No. 156, September Term 2008.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - WHETHER THE STATE LAW DEFINITION OF “CHILD SUPPORT” AS AN ONGOING OBLIGATION PURSUANT TO 12-200 ET SEQ IS APPROPRIATELY USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ENTITLEMENT OR RIGHT AWARDED TO A DEPENDENT OF A PARTICIPANT, PURSUANT TO A DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER, IMPERMISSIBLY FRUSTRATES THE PREEMPTION PROVISION AND THE LIMITED EXCEPTION TO THE ANTI-ALIENATION CLAUSE PROVIDED FOR BY REA?

 

Denied December 19, 2008

Anderson v. Baltimore Sun - Pet. Docket No. 471, September Term 2008.
Ritter v. Ritter - Pet. Docket No. 72, September Term 2006 (motion for reconsideration).
Ritter v. Ritter - Pet. Docket No. 73, September Term 2006 (motion for reconsideration).
Ritter v. Ritter - Pet. Docket No. 74, September Term 2006.

 

Granted December 10, 2008

Grasslands Plantation, Inc. v. Frizz-King Enterprises, LLC, No. 117, September Term, 2008

ISSUES - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ZONING - (1) WHAT STATUTORY ENACTMENT MUST BE MADE BY A LOCAL JURISDICTION IF IT INTENDS FOR ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE ELEVATED TO A STATUS OF LEGAL ENFORCEABILITY AND “THE LEVEL OF REGULATORY DEVICE”? (2) DOES THE ENACTMENT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT BY A LEGAL LEGISLATIVE BODY REQUIRE THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SUCH FINDINGS? (3) IS THERE A SHIFT OF BURDEN OF PROOF FROM APPLICANT/DEVELOPER OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW TO THE PROTESTANT(S) TO IT WHEN THE MATTER IS HEARD DE NOVO BY A LOCAL BOARD OF APPEALS FOLLOWING PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION BY THE LOCAL PLANNING COMMISSION?

Brown v. State, No. 118, September Term, 2008

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DO MARYLAND’S PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, INCLUDING THE BALTIMORE CITY ADULT FELONY DRUG TREATMENT COURT, LACK FUNDAMENTAL JURISDICTION? (2) DOES IMPOSITION OF A 35 DAY JAIL SENTENCE FOR VIOLATING A DRUG COURT RULE FOLLOWED BY THE SAME ACT AFTER THE SANCTION OF 35 DAYS HAS BEEN SERVED, VIOLATE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULES AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?

McFarlin v. State, No. 119, September Term, 2008

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS IT ERROR TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A LETTER SENT FROM PRISON BY PETITIONER TO HIS FATHER?

Miranda-Estacuy v. Progressive Northern Ins., No. 120, September Term, 2008

ISSUES - INSURANCE - (1) WHETHER AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY WHICH CONTAINS A FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION THAT PURPORTS TO EXCLUDE ALL COVERAGE AND WHICH BY ITS TERMS DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE STATUTORY MINIMUM BODILY INJURY COVERAGE AS REQUIRED BY MARYLAND LAW IMPLICITLY PROVIDES COVERAGE OF $20,000/$40,000 OR THE ENTIRE POLICY LIMITS? (2) WHETHER AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUSION WHICH CONTAINS AN EXCEPTION RENDERS THE ENTIRE EXCLUSION PROVISION INAPPLICABLE AND VOID IF THE EXCEPTION APPLIES?

Schreyer v. Chaplain and Webb-Cobb, No. 121, September Term, 2008

ISSUES - COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - TRANSPORTATION - (1) WHETHER PETITIONER’S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES “PURSUING A VIOLATOR OR A SUSPECTED VIOLATOR OF THE LAW” THEREBY, QUALIFYING AS AN “EMERGENCY SERVICE”? (2) WHETHER PETITIONER’S STATUTORY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY RENDERS HIM IMMUNE FROM THE RESPONDENTS’ SUIT?

Lancaster v. State, No. 122, September Term, 2008

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED A BROAD PRE-TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER?

 

Denied December 12, 2008

Afolabi-Brown v. U.S. Title - Pet Docket No. 193
Montalbano v. MBNA - Pet. Docket No. 405
Arnold, James G. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 404
Awah v. Hyundai - Pet. Docket No. 144
Baltimore County v. Wittbecker - Pet. Docket No. 469
Berger v. Kearney - Pet. Docket No. 477
Bridgeford, Douglas C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 390
Carter, Dwayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 395
Carter, Faheem H. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 382
Coates, Joseph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 394
Dawson v. 4040 - Pet. Docket No. 364
Dildar v. Pickens - Pet. Docket No. 126 (motion for reconsideration)
Douglas, Ellis R. Jr.. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 393
Easterwood, John C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 387
Evans v. Grant - Pet. Docket No. 373
Faulkner, Alvin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 389
Flynnv. Russel Motors - Pet. Docket No. 386
Freeman v. Springford Gardens - Pet. Docket No. 401
Georgia, Calvin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 392
Greeg v. Cooney - Pet. Docket No. 410
Hall v. PTD - Pet. Docket No. 411
Hayes v. Lorien Nursing - Pet. Docket No. 335
Humanvision v. Karington - Pet. Docket No. 372
In Re: Adoption of Paige Leanne S. - Pet. Docket No. 369
In Re: Destiny C. - Pet. Docket No. 383
In Re: Zechariah C. - Pet. Docket No. 65 (motion for reconsideration)
Jackson, Bion C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 381
Jackson v. Jackson - Pet. Docket No. 300
James, Phillip T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 378
Keller, David W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 367 and cross-petition
Maddox, Carlos v. State - Pet. Docket No. 402
McClain, Debra v. State - Pet. Docket No. 187 (motion for reconsideration)
Petty, Robert William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 400
Sandler, Ichshe B. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 371
Savage, Tyrone v. State - Pet. Docket No. 403
Scroggins, Francis v. State - Pet. Docket No. 374
Stewart, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 380
Stinney, Terry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 388
Strickland v. Toyota - Pet. Docket No. 354
Summers, Joseph W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 409
T & Y v. H2J - Pet. Docket No. 377
Whitacre, James M. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 368
Williams, Gregory v. State - Pet. Docket No. 332
Xtel v. Cunha - Pet. Docket No. 366
Xtel v. Travessa - Pet. Docket No. 365
Yalla v. Calder - Pet. Docket No. 295
Young v. Holderness - Pet. Docket No. 260
Zimmerman v. Hillman - Pet. Docket No. 375
Zitterbart v. Suzuki - Pet. Docket No. 376