Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2008

 

Granted May 29, 2009

Harriette Julian v. Joseph V. Buonassissi, et al. - Case No. 37, September Term 2009

 

Denied May 8, 2009

Afolabi-Brown v. U.S. Tiles - Pet. Docket No. 654
Banks, Linwood - Pet. Docket No. 4*
Bingaman, Floyd E. III v. State - Pet. Docket No. 2*
Brockington, Timothy T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 560
Buckmaster, Graham D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 671
Burroughs, Lamont v. State - Pet. Docket No. 670
Bush, Terrel T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 587
Chesapeake Express v. Rubin - Pet. Docket No. 667
Davis, Andre J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 16*
Ethridge, Damon Lamont v. State - Pet. Docket No. 567
Green, Preston v. State - Pet. Docket No. 652
Hafez v. Walter - Pet. Docket No. 634
Guy, Stephen Bernard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 23*
Johnson, Phillip v. State - Pet. Docket No. 24*
Jones, David Dwayne Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 15*
Jones, David Dwayne Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 20*
Joseph v. Joseph - Pet. Docket No. 6*
Knight, Donte v. State - Pet. Docket No. 592
Lampkins v. Prince George County - Pet. Docket No. 499 (motion for reconsideration)
Lawrence v. Anne Arundel County - Pet. Docket No. 6*
Lay, John R. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 542 (motion for reconsideration)
Mitchell, Ronald R. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 660
Muhammd v. Alexander Development - Pet. Docket No. 669
Murray, Renard T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 538 (motion for reconsideration)
Pope v. D'Addario - Pet. Docket No. 666
Robertson, Anthony J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 3*
Robertson, Donald Wayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 9*
Rose, Brian James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 629
Shaker, Donald v. State - Pet. Docket No. 655
Smith v. Friedman - Pet. Docket No. 665
State v. Artley Travis Simon - Pet. Docket No. 658
Swann Haven v. Passyn - Pet. Docket No. 653
Tyner v. Warden - Pet. Docket No. 648
Ward, Douglas Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 651
Weathers v. Social Services - Pet. DOcket No. 17*
Wynn, Terrence v. State - Pet. Docket No. 568

 

* September Term 2009

 

Granted May 6, 2009

Monica Allen, Indiviudally, etc., et al. v. Jay Dackman - Case No. 46, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - WAS THE LOWER COURT INCORRECT IN AFFIRMING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT OWN, HOLD OR CONTROL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE?


Constant Friendship Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Kevin Tillery - Case No. 45, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - ATTORNEYS FEES - (1) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL SOUGHT, A PRACTICE THAT IT CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYS IN EACH AND EVERY CASE COMING BEFORE IT? (2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED BY PETITION WHEN IT CREATED A LIEN AGAINST RESPONDENT’S LOT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS? (3) WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO AWARD ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED ON THE APPEAL ON THIS MATTER, DESPITE HAVING DETERMINED THAT ALL OF THE ATTORNEY’S FEES REQUESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT MATTER WERE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND AWARDING SUCH FEES?


Thomas Peter Headen v. Motor Vehicle Administration - Case No. 42, September Term 2009.
(petition and cross-petition both granted)

ISSUES - TRANSPORTATION - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED THE MVA’S REFUSAL TO EXPUNGE SELECTED TRAFFIC CONVICTIONS BASED ON AN ILLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. SECTION 16-117.1 UNDER WHICH THE PETITION WAS AT THE SAME TIME BOTH ELIGIBLE FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF “PUBLIC” DRIVING RECORDS BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN CONVICTION FREE FOR TEN YEARS AS REQUIRED BY MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. SECTION 16-117.1 AND INELIGIBLE FOR EXPUNGEMENT BECAUSE MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. SECTION 12-111(b)(2) DEFINES “PUBLIC” RECORDS AS BEING RECORDS UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ORDERING THE MVA TO PROVIDE PETITIONER A HEARING TO CONTEST MVA’S REFUSAL TO ISSUE HIM A DRIVER’S LICENSE, AFTER THE AGENCY REFUSED HIS APPLICATION, PURSUANT TO MD. CODE ANN., TRANSP. SECTION 16-103.1(1) BASED ON THE PERMANENT REVOCATION OF HIS DRIVER’S LICENSE BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA?


Clarence Henry v. State of Maryland - Case No. 47, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DOES THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT APPLY WHERE BOTH THE INTENDED VICTIM AND AN UNINTENDED VICTIM ARE KILLED? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AS TO THE UNINTENDED VICTIM WHERE THE COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON SECOND DEGREE DEPRAVED HEART MURDER?


In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D., Jr. and Shaydon S. - Case No. 41, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - WHETHER PETITIONER’S SONS WERE INVOLUNTARILY TAKEN FROM HIS CUSTODY AND, OVER HIS OBJECTIONS, WERE KEPT IN THE CUSTODY OF A THIRD PARTY FOR SIX YEARS, WAS IT ERROR FOR THE LOWER COURT TO FIND THAT THIS PERIOD OF SEPARATION BETWEEN FATHER AND SONS, AND THE COMMENSURATE BONDING BETWEEN THE CHILDREN AND THE FOSTER MOTHER, WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO PRESERVE PETITIONER’S INHERENT RIGHTS AS A NATURAL PARENT TO THE CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS SONS?

Harriette Julian v. Joseph Buonassissi, et al. - Case No. 37, September Term 2009.
(petition and cross-petition both granted)

ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - FORECLOSURE - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT AN EXPRESS VIOLATION OF A BROAD REMEDIAL STATUTE RENDERED THE UNDERLYING TRANSACTION MERELY VOIDABLE AND NOT VOID AD INITIO? (2) IF, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE TRANSACTION IS VOIDABLE, DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER ADDUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE ON NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE CONSULTING CONTRACT AND THEREBY SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVE BONA FIDES? (3) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REQUIRING AS A CONDITION OF THE CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF AN APPEAL, THAT SUCH PARTY POST A BOND COMMENSURATE WITH THE UNDISPUTED AMOUNTS THEY RECEIVED?


Seyed Mehran Mirjafari, et al. v. Edward S. Cohn, et al.
- Case No. 38, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - FORECLOSURE - (1) WHETHER THE TIME OF DETERMINING BONA FIDE PURCHASER STATUS IS TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF THE SUCCESSFUL BID AT A FORECLOSURE SALE OR AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE PURCHASE PRICE IS PAID? (2) WHETHER A FORECLOSURE PURCHASER WHO DOES NOT SETTLE ON HIS PURCHASE UNTIL FOURTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE, LONG AFTER AN APPEAL HAS BEEN NOTED AND LONG AFTER THE DATE REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF SALE, AND BY THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT HAS NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE SALE, IS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER?


Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Tiffany Hamilton
- Case No. 43, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - ATTORNEYS FEES - (1) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL SOUGHT, A PRACTICE THAT IT CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYS IN EACH AND EVERY CASE COMING BEFORE IT? (2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED BY PETITIONER WHEN IT CREATED A LIEN AGAINST RESPONDENT’S LOT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS? (3) WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO AWARD ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED ON THE APPEAL OF THIS MATTER, BUT DETERMINED THAT ALL OF THE ATTORNEY’S FEES REQUESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT MATTER WERE FAIR AND RESPONSIBLE AND AWARDED SUCH FEES?


Montpelier Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bode and Bonike Thomas-Ojo - Case No. 44, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - ATTORNEYS FEES (1) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL SOUGHT, A PRACTICE THAT IT HAS BEGUN TO EMPLOY IN MANY COLLECTIONS CASES COMING BEFORE IT? (2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED BY PETITION WHEN IT CREATED A LIEN AGAINST RESPONDENTS’ LOT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS? (3) WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT INCREASED THE ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD GIVEN IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO A FLAT $300.00 WITH NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT SUCH FEE AWARD WAS FOR, BUT REFUSED TO AWARD ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED ON THE APPEAL OF THIS MATTER TO THAT COURT?


Motor Vehicle Administration v. John Edward Dove, Jr. - Case No. 40, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CORRECT TO FIND THAT A MOTORCYCLIST, WHO REFUSED TO TAKE AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION TEST WHEN HE WAS AT A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM, IMMOBILIZED ON A CERVICAL BACKBOARD, AND SUFFERING FROM A BROKEN WRIST, SHOULD HAVE HIS DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENDED DUE TO THAT REFUSAL WHERE THE MOTORCYCLIST ASSERTED THAT HIS REFUSAL OF THE REQUESTED TEST WAS JUSTIFIED BY HIS FEAR OF NEEDLES, HIS PREFERENCE FOR A BREATH TEST, AND BY A LATER ADMINISTRATION OF AN ALCOHOL CONTENT TEST BY HOSPITAL STAFF?

Curtis O. Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder and Adkins, LLC - Case No. 39, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING THE GARNISHEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT COURTS ARTICLE, SECTION 11-504(B)(2) PROVIDES AN EXEMPTION FROM EXECUTION FOR MONEY PAYABLE IN THE EVENT OF SICKNESS, ACCIDENT OR INJURY, EVEN THOUGH MARYLAND AND FEDERAL PUBLIC POLICY FAVOR EXCEPTING A JUDGMENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT FROM THE EXEMPTION STATUES?

State of Maryland v. Maurice Davis - Case No. 48, September Term 2009.

CRIMINAL LAW - ISSUE - DID THE LOWER COURT MISTAKENLY HOLD THAT RULE 4-215(e) WAS TRIGGERED WHEN RESPONDENT NEVER MADE A PRESENT REQUEST TO DISCHARGE COUNSEL?

Richard White v. State of Maryland - Case No. 36, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - NEGLIGENCE - FIREMAN’S RULE - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT’S DECISION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION UNDERLYING THE FIREMAN’S RULE AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AND CREATES CONFLICT IN THE LAW WHICH INEQUITABLY PENALIZES EMERGENCY POLICE RESPONDERS UNDER THE GUISE OF THE FIREMAN’S RULE BY CREATING AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO THEIR RECOVERY FOR INJURIES OCCURRING WHILE ON DUTY? (2) WHETHER SPECIFIC ENUMERATION OF A “SPECIAL DUTY” EXCEPTION TO THE FIREMAN’S RULE IS WARRANTED?