Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2008

 

Denied June 19, 2009

Bert v. Comptroller - Pet. Docket No. 638 (motion for reconsideration).
Black, Robert Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 55*
Blake, Shaidon E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 70*
Braun v. UMMC - Pet. Docket No. 113*
Cooper, Brian C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 109*
Davis, Wendell L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 131*
Debloise, Richard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 104*
Evans, Carl Preston Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 118*
Everett, Jonathan B. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 133*
Fletcher, Victor v. State - Pet. Docket No.43*
Giannasca Family v. Delta - Pet. Docket No. 96*
Gladden, Donte v. State - Pet. Docket No. 90*
Gregsby, David v. State - Pet. Docket No. 77*
Hall, Rodney v. State - Pet. Docket No. 532 (motion for reconsideration).
Halloran v. Montgomery County - Pet. Docket No. 135*
Harrison, Roy H. III v. State - Pet. Docket No. 97*
Harvey, Jermile v. State - Pet. Docket No. 80*
Herring, Dempsey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 132*
Higginbotham v. PSC - Pet. Docket No. 117*
Holmes, Anrwan D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 88*
In Re: Adoption of Jamison G. - Pet. Docket No. 76*
James v. Sheehy Ford - Pet. Docket No. 108*
Johnson, Anne Marie v. State - Pet. Docket No. 99*
Johnson, Clifton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 57*
Kent v. Cody - Pet. Docket No. 95*
Lowe, Robert F. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 81*
Manatee v. Harbor - Pet. Docket No. 100*
Markey v. Griffin - Pet. Docket No. 128*
Marshner, Philip H. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 103*
McKnight, William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 94*
Moore, Joel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 72* (petition and cross-petition).
Page v. Testerman - Pet. Docket No. 21*
Pletta v. Spears - Pet. Docket No. 116*
Poole v. CNA - Pet. Docket No. 111*
Pope, Mayner v. State - Pet. Docket No. 666 (motion for reconsideration).
Richburg v. Richburg - Pet. Docket No. 85*
Rosner v. Sessa - Pet. Docket No. 134*
Sanchez v. Potomac Abatement - Pet. Docket No. 158*
Scott, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 91*
Service Transport v. Hurricane Express - Pet. Docket No. 115*
Singh v. Supervisor of Assessments - Pet. Docket No. 86*
State v. Jack Lewis Hammersla, Jr. - Pet. Docket No. 73 *
State v. Mark Johnson - Pet. Docket No. 105*
Stokes, Keon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 75*
Thomas, Carl Ryan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 130*
Triantis v. Triantis - Pet. Docket No. 126*
Tyner v. Warden - Pet. Docket No. 648 (motion for reconsideration)
Vandiest, Connie Sarah v. State - Pet. Docket No. 79*
Walker, Lejuanne Maurice v. State - Pet. Docket No. 127*
Williams, Deandre v. State - Pet. Docket No. 106*
Woods, Dameon C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 87*
Woods v. Woods - Pet. Docket No. 121*
Young v. Fountain Green - Pet. Docket No. 112*
Young-Bey v. Rowley - Pet. Docket No. 124*
Young-Bey, Jeffrey M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 125
*


* September Term 2009

 

Granted June 17, 2009

William J. Blondell, Jr. et al. v. Diane M. Littlepage, et al. - Case No. 73, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - TORTS - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - (1) WHETHER AN ATTORNEY IN A JOINT REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT WITH CO-COUNSEL HAS AN ACTIONABLE TORT DUTY TO DISCLOSE TO CO-COUNSEL MATERIAL FACTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO THE REPRESENTATION WHEN THE FAILURE TO DO SO WILL NOT ONLY INJURE THE CLIENT AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE REPRESENTATION BUT ALSO RESULT IN ECONOMIC AND OTHER INJURY TO CO-COUNSEL? (2) WHETHER AN ATTORNEY OWES CO-COUNSEL CONTRACTUAL DUTIES OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING WITH RESPECT TO THE COURSE OF THE REPRESENTATION THE BREACH OF WHICH SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION? (3) WHETHER AN ATTORNEY CAN EVER STATE A CLAIM AGAINST CO-COUNSEL FOR THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH THE FIRST ATTORNEY’S ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP WITH CLIENT?

Elizabeth M. Carven v. State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland - Case No. 58, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - STATUTORY - DID TRIAL COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23-407 WERE APPLICABLE TO MR. CARVEN’S APPOINTMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND WOULD BAR HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE JUDGES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM?

Carmen Dickerson, Personal Representative of the Estate of Carter Bradley v. Ricardo Longorio, et al - Case No. 74, Sept. Term 2009.

ISSUES - HEALTH - ARBITRATION - (1) ABSENT A POWER OF ATTORNEY OR OTHER ADVANCE DIRECTIVE, DOES A FRIEND OR RELATIVE HAVE AUTHORITY TO BIND A NURSING-HOME RESIDENT TO AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT INCLUDED IN NURSING-HOME-ADMISSIONS DOCUMENTS? (2) IS AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT PROVIDING ONE PARTY WILL UNILATERALLY SELECT THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FROM A LIST CREATED BY THAT PARTY SO ONE-SIDED AS TO BE UNENFORCEABLE?

Joel Falik, et al v. James Hornage, et al. - Case No. 60, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EXPERT WITNESS - DID TRIAL COURT ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL RECORDS OF AN EXPERT WITNESS?

Rafael Flanagan v. Department of Human Resources, Baltimore City Ofice of Child Support Enforcement, ex rel. Baltimore City Department of Social Services - Case No. 64, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CIVIL CONTEMPT - WHERE THERE WAS NO VALID PERSONAL SERVICE, DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDING ON THE SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID PERSONAL SERVICE?

Timothy A. Frey, et al. v. Comptroller of the Treasury - Case No. 62, September Term 2009 (petition and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT (1) ALTHOUGH THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX WAS DISCRIMINATORY ON ITS FACE, IT WAS NONETHELESS A VALID COMPENSATORY TAX UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; (2) THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; (3) THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; AND (4) THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION AND THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS?

Goldfield, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company - Case No. 59, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - INSURANCE - WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INSURER CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF IN SHOWING ALLEGATIONS IN THREE COMPLAINTS FILED IN THE UNDERLYING CASE FALL WITHIN THE “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES” EXCLUSION OF THE INSURER’S COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY?

Keneth Longus v. State of Maryland - Case No. 68, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID LOWER COURT ERR BY RULING THAT TRIAL JUDGE CAN EXCLUDE A PORTION OF THE SPECTATORS FROM THE COURTROOM IF THE MOVING PARTY OFFERS A “SUBSTANTIAL REASON” TO DO SO? (2) DID TRIAL JUDGE ERR BY GRANTING STATE’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TWO SPECTATORS FROM COURTROOM DURING TESTIMONY OF A KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS?

Eduardo Escobar Martinez v. State of Maryland - Case No. 67, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURTS APPLY AN ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARD IN DETERMINING PETITIONER COULD NOT INQUIRE ABOUT A KEY WITNESS’S EXPECTATION OF LENIENCY WHERE STATE HAD DISMISSED THE WITNESS’S CHARGES OF FELONY THEFT AND UNAUTHORIZED USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE AND HIS APPEARANCE AT TRIAL WAS SECURED BY A BODY ATTACHMENT?

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Brittany Faith Aiken - Case No. 69, Septembe Term 2009.

ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - WHERE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE ALJ INCLUDED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A TEST RESULT IN THE FORM OF A TEST TECHNICIAN OR ANALYST’S SWORN STATEMENT THAT A DRIVER HAD A TEST RESULT INDICATING AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF 0.15 OR MORE AS PROVIDED IN MD. CODE ANN. TRANSPORTATION II, SECTION 16-205.1 (f) (7)(ii), DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING A LACK OF COMPETENT, MATERIAL & SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUSPENSION OF THE DRIVER’S LICENSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECORD DID NOT ALSO INCLUDE VARIOUS OTHER EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE?

Catherine A. Moreland Johnson v. James Michael Johnson - Case No. 63, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN COMPELLING THE SURVIVING TRUSTEE OF AN INTER VIVOS TRUST TO PROVIDE THE TRUST AGREEMENT AND AN ACCOUNTING TO A BENEFICIARY WHOSE INTEREST IS CONTINGENT AND SUBJECT TO DIVESTMENT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CLEAR TERMS OF THE TRUST?

Prince George's County, Maryland, et al. v. Cleveland Brent - Case No. 71, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - TRANSPORTATION - (1) WHETHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIMS ACT SHOULD EXTEND TO INCLUDE PUBLIC OFFICIALS OF A CHARTER COUNTY UNDER MD CODE ANN. SECTION 5-507(b)(2) FOR PURPOSES OF DEFENSES AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 5-503(d) & (e) OF THE LGTCA? (2) WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS OF SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LGTCA TO HAVE A SEPARATE LOWER CAP FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE BECAUSE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED BY SMALL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS VERSUS LARGER GOVERNMENT UNITS?

Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, et al. v. Mary Linklater - Case No. 66, September Term 2009. (petition and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) WHETHER MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION IS LIMITED TO MATTERS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A COURT TO DECIDE AN ISSUE OF RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE OR DOGMA, OR WHETHER IT APPLIES MORE BROADLY TO MATTERS OF CHURCH GOVERNANCE? (2) WHETHER CONTINUING VIOLATION PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO CLAIMS UNDER ART. 49B, SECTION 42 AND, IF SO, WHETHER MERELY ALLEGING A DISCRETE AND SEPARATE ACT OF RETALIATION CAN SAVE OTHERWISE DIFFERENT, UNTIMELY SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS? (3) WHETHER INDIVIDUALS CAN BE PERSONALLY LIABLE AS AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE MONTGOMERY CO. CODE? (4) WHETHER MD. CODE ANN. ART. 49B SECTION 42 VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION BY ALLOWING MONTGOMERY CO. TO CREATE CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS IN THAT COUNTY THAT DO NOT EXIST IN MARYLAND’S OTHER JURISDICTIONS?

RRC Northease, LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc. - Case No. 70, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - TORTS - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT TO REFRAIN FROM DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION MUST BE DISMISSED WHERE THE PARTIES’ CONTRACT DID NOT PROHIBIT ALL COMPETITION BUT RATHER PROVIDED SPECIFIC LIMITS TO COMPETITION WHICH ONE OF THE PARTIES EXCEEDED? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DISMISSING A BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WHERE THE PLAINTIFF MADE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATION AND BREACH THEREOF BUT FAILED TO EITHER ATTACH COPIES OF OR QUOTE EXTENSIVELY FROM CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS?

Michael S. Rudman v. Maryland State Board of Physics - Case No. 72, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - HEALTH-OCCUPATIONS - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO VACATE THE FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD WHERE PETITIONER ENTERED INTO AN ALFORD PLEA ON ONE COUNT OF SECOND DEGREE ASSAULT AND THE TRIAL COURT STRUCK THE GUILTY PLEA AND GRANTED PETITIONER PROBATION BEFORE JUDGMENT PLACING HIM ON SUPERVISED PROBATION FOR THREE YEARS AND THEREAFTER THE BOARD REVOKED PETITIONER’S LICENSE WITHOUT A HEARING?

Edy Sanchez v. Potomac Abatement, Inc. and A.I.U. Insurance Company - Case No. 65, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT - WHETHER THE MD STATEWIDE AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE INDEX (SWAWW) USED TO CALCULATE AND ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM OR CAP OF WEEKLY COMPENSATION RESULTING FROM A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY OF 185 WEEKS IS THAT INDEX ON THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT OR ON THE DATE THE RIGHT TO SUCH COMPENSATION COMMENCES?

Kelroy Wiliamson v. State of Maryland - Case No. 61, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS IT ERROR TO DENY MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S STATUTORY AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

 

Denied June 17, 2009

Vanmeter v. Burson - Pet. Docket No. 162*


*September Term 2009

Granted June 15, 2009

Darryl E. Green v. State - Case No. 161, Sept. Term 2008 - Petition on behalf of Public Defender granted and petition by pro-se denied.

 

Denied June 12, 2009

Abdullah, Saleen N. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 60*
Ali v. Song - Pet. Docket No. 61*
Brinsfield v. Brinsfield - Pet. Docket No. 62*
Chester, Darrel A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 56*
Coleman's v. BDC - Pet. Docket No. 84*
Cooper, Today R. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 42*
Costa Brava v. Telos - Pet. Docket No. 65*
Dimensions Health v. Byrd - Pet. Docket No. 63*
Doye, Delano v. State - Pet. Docket No. 44*
Edwards, Joseph W. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 39*
Evans, Matthew T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 37*
Felder v. Bell - Pet. Docket No. 47*
Gray v. Curtis - Pet. Docket No. 664
Hall v. St. Mary's - Pet. Docket No. 69*
Hall, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 50*
Harrison v. Erie - Pet. Docket No. 67* and cross-petition
Howard, Parrish v. State - Pet. Docket No. 51*
Hubbard, Gregory L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 49*
Johnson, Ednard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 35*
Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 25*
Jones, Duane T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 54*
Kamara, Mohammed A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 26*
Manas v. Corrigan - Pet. Docket No. 614
Martin v. MD Securities - Pet. Docket No. 41*
Marx v. Nagel - Pet. Docket No. 38*
Paylor, Keisha v. State - Pet. Docket No. 662
Restrepo v. Vest - Pet. Docket No. 59*
Rice, Gregory A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 668
Stephenson v. Washington Medical - Pet. Docket No. 630 (motion for reconsideration)
Thomas, Renaldo D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 52*
Tillman v. Rice - Pet. Docket No. 590 (motion for reconsideration)
Wheeler v. Miller - Pet. Docket No. 492 (motion for reconsideration)
Windsor v. Salisbury - Pet. Docket No. 64*
Witherspoon, Winfred v. State - Pet. Docket No. 34*


* September Term 2009

Granted June 9, 2009

Ameriquest Mortgage Company v. Paramount Mortgage Company - Case No. 52, September Tem 2009.

ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - MAY A LIENHOLDER CHALLENGE AN EARLIER RECORDED DEED OF TRUST ON THE BASIS OF AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSIDERATION AND DISBURSEMENT IF SUCH CHALLENGE IS NOT FILED UNTIL 18
MONTHS AFTER RECORDATION?

Boemio, Thomas v. Cynthia Boemio - Case No. 57, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON “ALIMONY GUIDELINES” WHICH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE OR RULE IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF ALIMONY AWARD TO THE APPELLEE?

Boulden, Sheila v. State - Case No. 49, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - MAY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT EFFECTIVELY WAIVE HIS OR HER RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL?

Briggs, Troy v. State - Case No. 56, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - WHERE MARYLAND STATUTES AND RULES DEFINE “CHARGING DOCUMENT” TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF CHARGES, DID THE CIRCUIT COURT PROPERLY DETERMINE THAT A STATEMENT OF CHARGES IS A “CHARGING DOCUMENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF FORMER ARTICLE 27, SECTION 286(d)?

Dillard, William Edward v. State - Case No. 50, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - SHOULD PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER BE PRESUMED WHERE, FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE’S PRIMARY LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESS, TWO JURORS PATTED THE WITNESS ON THE BACK AND COMMENDED HIM FOR DOING A “GOOD JOB"?

In Re: Breanna C. and Robert C., Jr. - Case No. 53, September Tem 2009.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - IS A PARENT GRANTED “VISITATION” WITH HIS CHILD WHEN HE IS MERELY ALLOWED TO HAVE “WRITTEN OR TELEPHONIC CORRESPONDENCE” WITH THAT CHILD?

Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al. v. Aris Mardirossian, et al. - Case No. 55, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - DISCOVERY - (1) WHETHER A LITIGANT MAY REQUIRE A HIGH-RANKING GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHOSE CONDUCT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE LITIGATION TO STAND FOR DEPOSITION ABSENT A SHOWING THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS NECESSARY TO THE LITIGANT’S CASE AND UNAVAILABLE FROM ANOTHER SOURCE? (2) WHETHER A LITIGANT MAY SUBPOENA AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL FOR DEPOSITION CONCERNING A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER SUBJECT TO THE OFFICIAL’S JURISDICTION ABSENT A SHOWING OF FRAUD OR EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES?

Stouffer, J. Michael; Commissioner of Correction v. Troy Reid - Case No. 54, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - MAY THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION ADMINISTER LIFE-SUSTAINING MEDICAL TREATMENT OR NUTRITION TO AN INMATE OVER THE INMATE’S OBJECTION WHERE THE LACK OF TREATMENT MAY CAUSE THE INMATE’S DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY AND THREATEN PRISON, SAFETY, SECURITY AND GOOD ORDER?

Thomas, James v. State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland - Case No. 51, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - WHETHER A POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN DENY AN EMPLOYEE A SPECIAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT WHEN THE EMPLOYEE’S DISABILITY DID NOT ARISE FROM THE EMPLOYEE’S MISCONDUCT, BUT RATHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING THE MISCONDUCT?

 

Denied June 2, 2009

Riffin v. Wisnom - Pet. Docket No. 154*


* September Term 2009