Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2008

 

Denied April 10, 2009

Abdelbaki v. Henderson-Webb - Pet. Docket No. 518
Adam v. Adam - Pet. Docket No. 644
Allen v. Marriott - Pet. Docket No. 607
Batts v. Antonis - Pet. Docket No. 619
Bert v. Comptroller - Pet. Docket No. 638
Betskoff, Kevin C. Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 493
Brooks, Timothy A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 612
Corporal, Jeffrey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 605
Dynamic v. Optimum - Pet. Docket No. 407
Garner, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 626
Gaumer, John C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 623
Green, Tony Lee v. State - Pet. Docket No. 610
Hall, Rodney v. State - Pet. Docket No. 532
Julian v. Spencer - Pet. Docket No. 637
Harris, Steven W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 611
Holtschneider v. Haenfling - Pet. Docket No. 650
Kanu v. Eight O'Clock Coffee - Pet. Docket No. 383, Sept. Term 2005 (motion for reconsideration)
King v. Pfeiffer - Pet. Docket No. 604
Kingery, Frederick A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 625
Lewis v. Krawczak - Pet. Docket No. 591
Lynch, Renardo v. State - Pet. Docket No. 618
Lyons v. Hautman - Pet. Docket No. 641
Magruder v. Cassell - Pet. Docket No. 517
Malhotra v. Ryan - Pet. Docket No. 344
Malhotra v. Ryan - Pet. Docket No. 632
Mantzouranis v. Apostolopoulos - Pet. Docket No. 609
Mills, Anthony J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 603
Morrison v. Osteoimplant Tech - Pet. Docket No. 646
Mosquera, Hector J. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 631
National Transport v. Rafique - Pet. Docket No. 516
Oni v. MD Nationals Financial - Pet. Docket No. 581
Paxton v. Allegany County - Pet. Docket No. 628
People's Counsel v. 3600 Georgetown - Pet. Docket No. 622
Quill v. Park - Pet. Docket No. 627
Radhakrishnan v. Radhakrishnan - Pet. Docket No. 639
Robinson, Taunses Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 617
Specialty Auto v. Progressive - Pet. Docket No. 397
Stephenson v. Washington Medical - Pet. Docket No. 630 (and cross-petition)
Stover, Daniel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 597
Thompson v. Harper - Pet. Docket No. 615
Tinsley v. Townson - Pet. Docket No. 640
Waste Management v. Prince George's County - Pet. Docket No. 647
Wheeler v. Miller - Pet. Docket No. 492
Wartenberg v. Slaby - Pet. Docket No. 636
Young, Quinton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 624

 

Granted April 9, 2009

In Re: Purnell S. - Case No. 160, September Term 2008.

 

Granted April 7, 2009

Laurel Racing Association, Inc. v. Video Lottery Facility Location Commission, et al. - Case No. 159, September Term 2008 (petition and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - STATE GOVERNMENT - (1) WHETHER LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 9-1A-36(j)(2) OF THE ACT, “[A]LL INITIAL LICENSE FEES SUBMITTED UNDER THE SUBTITLE SHALL ACRUE TO THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND,” IS AMBIGUOUS? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TAX GEN’L ART. SECTION 13-901(a)(2) ALLOWS FOR THE REFUND OF AN UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER’S INITIAL LICENSE FEE? (3) WHETHER AN ACT THAT REQUIRES THE STATE TO RETAIN AN UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER’S INITIAL LICENSE FEE IN ADDITION TO A SEPARATE APPLICATION FEE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT BID IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? (4) WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY EXPRESS AUTHORITY, GUIDELINES OR STANDARDS AS TO WHETHER THE LOCATION COMMISSION MAY REFUND AN UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER’S LICENSE FEE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER? (5) WHETHER A BIDDER FOR A STATE LICENSE WHO SUBMITS A PROPOSAL BASED ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION EXPRESSLY STATED IN SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE ITS BID AFTER A COURT MODIFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BIDDING PROCESS? (6) DID APPELLANT WAIVE ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE INITIAL LICENSE FEE REQUIREMENT OF THE VLT PROGRAM BY FAILING TO RAISE THOSE OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS AS THE LOCATION COMMISSION’S REPORT FOR PROPOSALS REQUIRED?

Ruffin Hotel Corporation of Maryland, Inc. v. Kathleen Gasper - Case No. 24, September Term 2009 (petition and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - (1) IN RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIMS SHOULD JURIES BE INSTRUCTED THAT PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE THAT RETALIATION WAS A “DETERMINING FACTOR,” AS OPPOSED TO A “MOTIVATING FACTOR,” IN HER TERMINATION? (2) IS A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CLAIM BASED UPON ALLEGE SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ALLEGEDLY RETALIATORY DISCHARGE PREEMPTED BY MD ANTI-DISCRIMINATION STATUTES? (3) DOES MD WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT PREEMPT A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CLAIM BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE AGAINST HER EMPLOYER?

Royal Investment Group, LLC, et al. v. Don C. Wang - Case No. 25, September Term 2009 (petition granted in part and cross-petition denied.)

ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - STATUTE OF FRAUDS - (1) IN AN ORAL CONTRACT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IS THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS SATISFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT WRITING SIGNED AFTER AN ALLEGED BREACH OF AN ORAL AGREEMENT? (2) IF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS IS SATISFIED BY A WRITING SIGNED AFTER AN ALLEGED BREACH OF ORAL AGREEMENT, MUST THAT WRITING BE DELIVERED BY THE PARTY TO BE CHARGED? (3) DOES THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS APPLY TO ALLOW ORAL MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXECUTED, WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY WHERE THAT CONTRACT CONTAINS A CLAUSE SPECIFYING THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH THE CONTRACT MAY BE MODIFIED?

Alphonso Garner v. State - Case No. 26, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT, PURPORTING TO REIN IN THE “EXPANSIONIST TIDE THAT PRODUCED” THIS COURT’S DECISIONS IN STODDARD AND BERNADYN, ERR IN HOLDING THAT AN OUT-OF COURT STATEMENT BY A NON-TESTIFYING, UNNAMED CALLER TO PETITIONER’S CELL PHONE IN WHICH THE CALLER SAID, “CAN I GET A 40,” WAS NOT HEARSAY? (2) ARE THE RULE 4-215(e) REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY WHERE THE TRIAL COURT PERMITS A DEFENDANT TO DISCHARGE COUNSEL, APPLICABLE WHERE COUNSEL WAS NOT ACTUALLY DISCHARGED BUT INSTEAD CONDUCTED ALL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL?

Charles F. Moore, Jr. v. State - Case No. 27, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER AS THIS COURT HELD IN BOWIE V. STATE IS IT MANDATORY UPON TIMELY REQUEST BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT THAT A TRIAL COURT ASK POTENTIAL JURORS ON VOIR DIRE WHETHER THEY WOULD TEND TO VIEW THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES CALLED BY THE DEFENSE WITH MORE SKEPTICISM THAN THAT OF WITNESSES CALLED BY THE STATE, MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE CALLED BY THE DEFENSE?


Stephen W. Schultz, Personal Representative of the Estate of Melvin Ray schultz v. Bank of America, National Association - Case No. 28, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - (1) IS AN EXPERT OPINION NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR A BANK WHEN ADDING A CUSTOMER TO AN ACCOUNT? (2) DOES THIS CASE OVERRULE PRIOR PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT AND LOWER COURT AS TO NECESSITY OF EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY AS ESTABLISHING THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR BANKS AND OTHER INDUSTRIES? (3) DOES THE IMPLIED DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE IMPLICIT IN A DEPOSITOR-BANK CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRE PROOF OF ANY EVIDENCE BEYOND THIS IMPLIED DUTY?


Miller and Smith at Quercus, L.L.C., et al. v. Casey PMN, LLC - Case No. 29, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - (1) DOES THE TERM “SALES PROCEEDS PAYABLE” AS USED IN A PRIVATE CONTRACT INCORPORATING MD. CODE ANN. COMM. LAW, SECTION 9-102(A)(65) INCLUDE TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR WHICH THE SELLER MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE? (2) MAY A PARTY, THROUGH A VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CAUSE A NON-FINAL JUDGMENT TO BECOME FINAL? (3) MAY AN APPELLATE COURT CONSTRUE AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT AS A MATTER OF LAW WITHOUT GIVING THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE?

Tony Williams v. State - Case No. 30, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ADMITTING A VIDEOTAPE OF PRIOR TESTIMONY OF THE STATE’S KEY WITNESS WHO DIED BEFORE PETITIONER’S SECOND TRIAL, WHERE THE PROSECUTION HAD WITHHELD EVIDENCE THAT THE KEY WITNESS WAS “LEGALLY BLIND” THEREBY DENYING PETITIONER A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT REFUSED TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S INDICTMENT WITH PREJUDICE DUE TO PROSECUTION’S BRADY AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE VIOLATIONS?

St. Paul Travelers v. Robert Millstone as Trustee of Montgomery Scrap Corporation Profit Sharing Plan - Case No. 31, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - INSURANCE - (1) DOES THE LEGAL ACTION CLAUSE IN THE MARYLAND CHANGES ENDORSEMENT TO AN INSURANCE POLICY INQUIRING THAT LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER INVOLVING LOSS BE BROUGHT WITHIN 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE THE INSURED DISCOVERS THE LOSS (a) VIOLATE SECTION 12-104 OF THE INSURANCE ARTICLE? AND (b) ESTABLISH THE INSURED’S DISCOVERY OF LOSS AS THE AGREED ACCRUAL DATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF THE 3-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD? (2) DOES THE REQUIREMENT IN THE LEGAL ACTION CLAUSE IN THE MARYLAND CHANGES ENDORSEMENT TO AN INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDING THAT THE INSURED MAY NOT BRING SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER UNTIL 90 DAYS AFTER THE INSURED HAS FILED PROOF OF LOSS WITH THE INSURER, OPERATE TO IMPERMISSIBLY SHORTEN THE 3-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 12-104 OF THE INSURANCE ARTICLE?

Lisa Whittaker v. Terrance Dixon - Case No. 32, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -
(1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT A JURISDICTIONAL BASIS AND IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICEMEMBER’S CIVIL RELIEF ACT (SCRA)? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DECLINING TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION TO PROTECT PETITIONER’S RIGHTS IN RESTORING THE STATUS QUO ANTE AND NOT RETURNING THE MINOR CHILD TO PETITIONER? (3) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH NOTICE OF COLLATERAL PLEADINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDING?

Betty A. Appiah, et al. v. Bruce Edward Hall, et al. - Case No. 33, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - (1) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTED AND LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DESPITE DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DEROGATION OF PROPER CONCEPTUALIZATION, INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULE? (2) WHETHER THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESTS ON AN ERRANT INTERPRETATION OF THE “RIGHT TO CONTROL” REQUIRED FOR LIABILITY UNDER RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, SECTION 414?

Emma Elder v. Cherry Elder Smith, Personal Representative of the Estate of Colonel Percy Elder, Sr. - Case No. 34, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - (1) WHETHER THE ENFORCEMENT OF A LIEN OF A RECORDED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE OF A DECEASED JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS EXEMPT FROM ADMINISTRATION BY AN ORPHANS’ COURT OR WHETHER THAT REAL PROPERTY BECOMES PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORPHANS COURT BECAUSE THE LIEN WAS OBTAINED BY JUDGMENTS RECORDED AFTER THE DECEDENT’S DEATH? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRONEOUSLY DECLARED AN EXCEPTION FROM THREE STATUTES, ABSOLUTE IN THEIR TERMS, WHICH EXEMPT FROM ADMINISTRATION BY THE ORPHANS’ COURT THE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF REAL ESTATE UPON WHICH A JUDGMENT LIEN HAS BEEN OBTAINED?

In Re: Faith H. - Case No. 35, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CINA - DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR BY ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT TO PRESENT ITS CASE-IN-CHIEF THROUGH WRITTEN REPORTS AND WITHOUT ANY IN PERSON TESTIMONY WHERE THE NATURAL PARENT OBJECTED?

 

Denied April 3 , 2009

From the Heart v. African Methodist Church - Pet. Docket No. 642 and cross-petition