Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2009

 

Granted December 18, 2009

Robert Harvey Bishop, Jr. v. State - Case No. 1, September Term 2010

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE PROCEEDED BY WAY OF AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS, MAY AN APPELLATE COURT RELY ON EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROFFERED BY THE STATE BUT DISPUTED BY THE DEFENSE IN DETERMINING THAT THE IMPROPER DENIAL OF A MOTION TO SUPPRESS IS HARMLESS ERROR? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPROPER DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS PETITIONER’S CONFESSION TO THE POLICE IS HARMLESS ERROR?

William Briscoe v. State - Case No. 4, September Term 2010

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT THE POLICE LAWFULLY SEIZED A HANGUN FROM PETITIONER’S VEHICLE DURING A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH?

Dale Albert Crispino, III v. State - Case No. 3, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO GIVE A JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRING UNANIMITY ON THE SPECIFIC ACT ON WHICH IT WAS BASING ITS GUILTY VERDICT? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT IT HAD TO FIND THAT THE CRIMINAL ACTS TOOK PLACE WITHIN THE TIME FRAME SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT?

James J. Dasher v. State - Case No. 150, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES THE MARYLAND PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTION ON RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, AS READ TO THE JURY AT THE PETITIONER’S TRIAL, ACCURATELY STATE THE CRIME OF RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT?

Norman Bruce Derr v. State - Case No. 6, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER APPELLANT’S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CONFRONTATION WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE STATE WAS PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE: (1) THE OPINION BY A SEROLOGY EXAMINER THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY IN THE SEROLOGICAL TESTING WITHOUT CALLING THE SEROLOGY EXAMINER AS A WITNESS OR SHOWING THAT THE EXAMINER WAS UNAVAILABLE AND THAT APPELLANT HAD A PRIOR OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE EXAMINER? (2) THE RESULTS OF DNA TESTING OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY IN THE DNA TESTING WITHOUT CALLING THE DNA ANALYST WHO PERFORMED THE TESTING AS A WITNESS OR SHOWING THAT THE ANALYST WAS UNAVAILABLE AND APPELLANT HAD A PRIOR OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ANALYST?

Justin Ray Hannah v. State - Case No. 151, September Term, 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) IN A PROSECUTION FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER, DID THE ADMISSION OF DEFENSE EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER DID NOT OWN OR HAVE ACCESS TO A GUN JUSTIFY THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF “RAP” LYRICS AND ASSOCIATED DRAWINGS PRODUCED BY PETITIONER ASSOCIATED TWO YEARS BEFORE THE OFFENSE WHICH DEALT WITH GUNS AND VIOLENCE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN EXCLUDING EVIDENCE THAT A KEY STATE’S WITNESS HAD AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE TO IMPLICATE PETITIONER?

Enoch Jermaine Hill v. State - Case No. 149, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DO STATEMENTS MADE BY AN INTERROGATING OFFICER TO A SUSPECT IMPLYING A VICTIM’S INCLINATION NOT TO PROSECUTE IF THE SUSPECT WERE TO APOLOGIZE CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER INDUCEMENT UNDER MARYLAND COMMON LAW WHERE THE SUSPECT RELIED ON THOSE STATEMENTS IN MAKING ADMISSIONS TO THE POLICE?

Miller Metal Fabrication, Inc., et al v. Dawn Ellen Wall, et vir. - Case No. 147, September Term 2009. (Petition and Cross-Petition)

ISSUES - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT REGARDING PETITIONERS’ FAILURE TO WARN OF RISKS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF THE MACHINE THAT WOULD NOT BE OBVIOUS TO NORMAL, REASONABLE USERS? (2) WHEN A CUSTOM BUILDER MANUFACTURES A MACHINE ACCORDING TO DESIGNS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY A CUSTOMER, CAN IT SUBSEQUENTLY BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY ALLEGED DESIGN EFFECTS IN THE MACHINE, OR IS IT SHIELDED FROM LIABILITY BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTRACTOR’S DEFENSE? (3) CAN A CUSTOM BUILDER RELY UPON THE CONTRACTOR’S DEFENSE IF IT MAKES MINOR CHANGES TO THE DESIGN PROVIDED TO IT BY SUBSTITUTING PARTS AND MATERIALS REQUIRED BY THE DESIGN THAT ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE?

Reverend Daki Napata v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation - Case No. 5, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - EDUCATION - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT MD. ANN. CODE OF ED. ART., SECTION 13-303 STATES THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND?

Jerry Smith, et al. v. County Commissioners of Kent County, Maryland, et al. - Case No. 2, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - STATE CRITICAL AREA - WAS THE DECISION OF THE CO. COMMISSIONERS OF KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR GROWTH ALLOCATION A FINAL, APPEALABLE DECISION DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONDITIONED UPON AN APPROVAL BY THE CRITICAL CARE COMMISSION?

State v. Wilbert Hardy - Case No. 148, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) HAVE “MEANINGFUL TRIAL PROCEEDINGS” COMMENCED WITH RESPECT TO MARYLAND RULE 4-215 WHEN THE VENIRE HAS BEEN SWORN AND VOIR DIRE HAS BEGUN? (2) WAS RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT THAT HE WAS “THINKING ABOUT CHANGING HIS ATTORNEY” NOT A REQUEST TO DISCHARGE HIS COUNSEL? (3) DID THE TRIAL COURT COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF MARYLAND RULE 4-215?

 

Denied December 18, 2009

Awah v. Board of Education - Pet. Docket No. 423
Bane v. Morrison - Pet. Docket No. 417
Barmer, Josh W. IV v. State - Pet. Docket No. 434
Brisbane, Lee Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 439
Byrd v. Wolpoff - Pet. Docket No. 446
Chase, Warren v. State - Pet. Docket No. 452
Gibson, Christopher v. State - Pet. Docket No. 419
Hargett, Kim v. State - Pet. Docket No. 418
In Re: Adoption of Mighty S. - Pet. Docket No. 233 (motion for reconsideration).
In Re: Derrick M. - Pet. Docket No. 421
Ivey v. Miller - Pet. Docket No. 451
Johnson, Nirado D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 425
Kim v. Long Fence - Pet. Docket No. 314 (motion for reconsideration).
King v. Colmers - Pet. Docket No. 433
Mahai, Kenneth Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 413
McDonald, William L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 428
Montgomery, Jeremiah Paul v. State - Pet. Docket No. 420
Decourcy's Pub v. License Commissioners - Pet. Docket No. 443
Oliveros, Humberto Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 440
Pickett v. Afzali - Pet. Docket No. 450
Pointer, Eric v. State - Pet. Docket No. 444
Schaefer, John M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 448
Shepaard v. Booth - Pet. Docket No. 415
Shiflett, Jeffrey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 442
Vitaliti v. Willis - Pet. Docket No. 435
Whiteflint Recovery v. Garry - Pet. Docket No. 431
Williams, Jonathan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 454
Woodson v. Allison Corp. - Pet. Docket No. 384

 

Granted December 11, 2009

Andrew Height v. State - Case No. 146, September Term 2009.

Nora Smith, et al. v. Housing Authoriuty of Baltimore City - Case No. 145, September Term 2009.

 

Denied December 11, 2009

Adeyemi v. Sheriff - Pet. Docket No. 346
Akram, Muhammad v. State - Pet. Docket No. 353
Albers, Scott William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 393
Alvez-El, Abdul K. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 369
Bane v. Sigler - Pet. Docket No. 351
Berry, David Clinton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 347
Bickerstaff v. CSX - Pet. Docket No. 395 and cross-petition denied
Butler v. Butler - Pet. Docket No. 374
Byrd, In the Matter of Robert - Pet. Docket No. 356
Collins, Julius v. State - Pet. Docket No. 389
Cook, Thomas D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 363
Cooper v. Marudas - Pet. Docket No. 404
Creamer, David T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 377
Davis v. Dept. of Child Care - Pet. Docket No. 387
Dorman v. Cecil County - Pet. Docket No. 341
Dorsey, Joseph E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 342
Duckett, Charles E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 410
Fennelly v. Aquino - Pet. Docket No. 362
Fisher v. McCrary Crescent City - Pet. Docket No. 349
Fitzgerald Auto v. Scott - Pet. Docket No. 392
Fullard, James A. Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 412
Gardner, Michael E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 358
Gladney, Myron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 368
Golden, David D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 348
Guth, Dean M. v. State - Pet. Docket 345
Harris, Anthony D. Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 375
Harrison v. Kleem - Pet. Docket No. 368
Hayman v. Gill - Pet. Docket No. 281
Hernandez, Hector v. State - Pet. Docket No. 283
Hong v. Cha - Pet. Docket No. 407
Hudson, Carlton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 338
Jackson, Damion D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 284
Jefferson v. Miller Brother Ford - Pet. Docket No. 288
Johnson, Kenneth v. State - Pet. Docket No. 207
Kahan v. Baltimore City - Pet. Docket No. 280
Kelly v. Morse - Pet. Docket No. 344
Koonce v. Dorsey-Koonce - Pet. Docket No. 373
Lawrence, Prince v. State - Pet. Docket No. 388
Masters v. Rose - Pet. Docket No. 405
Mays, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 359
Mayes, Norman L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 225 (motion for reconsideration)
Moore, Aaron V. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 381
Murray, Tony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 386
Nkwa v. Cohen - Pet. Docket No. 352
Oyarzo v. Dept. of Health - Pet. Docket No. 401
Peralta v. Lagunas - Pet. Docket No. 383
Peruzovic v. Miley - Pet. Docket No. 360
Phoebus v. Hartford Insurance - Pet. Docket No. 409
Quality care v. Greater Baltimore Urban - Pet. Docket No. 376
Snead, Michael A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 350
Stephens, Lee Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 365
Wallace, Paul v. State - Pet. Docket No. 411
White, Arthur v. State - Pet. Docket No. 364
Williams, Karlos v. State - Pet. Docket No. 391
Wilson v. Sage - Pet. Docket No. 378

 

Granted December 9, 2009

Appleton Regoinal Community Alliance et al v. Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County - Case No.137, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - ENVIRONMENTAL - WHETHER MARYLAND ANNOTATED CODE, ART. 25, SECTION 8 AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONERS TO PRIVATIZE CECIL COUNTY’S OPERATIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER ASSETS BY SELLING THEM TO WATER AND WASTEWATER COMPANIES?

Michele Collins v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation - Case No. 143, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE MAJORITY RULE IN FELA CASES THAT A JURY INSTRUCTION STATING THAT ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS NOT A DEFENSE SHOULD BE GIVEN WHERE THERE IS ANY DANGER THAT THE DEFENSE WAS EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY RAISED BY THE EVIDENCE AND IN SO DOING ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT NOT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY NOT REVIEWING AND NOT OVERTURNING THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS THE DECEDENT WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES?

Michael Reese Cooper v. State of Maryland - Case No. 132, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ORDERING RESTITUTION FOR THE LOSS THAT RESULTED FROM BOTH THE CHARGED AND UNCHARGED BURGLARIES?

East Oliver Street Limited Partnership v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore - Case No. 142, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) SHOULD THE ORDER IN THE TRIAL COURT APPOINTING A “VACANT BUILDING RECEIVER” FOR THE BUILDING OWNED BY PETITIONER BE VACATED BECAUSE SECTION 121 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER AS THE ORDINANCE WOULD PERMIT BALTIMORE CITY TO TAKE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WITHOUT REQUIRING BALTIMORE CITY TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION WITHOUT A JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION AND WITHOUT THE TAKING BEING FOR A PUBLIC USE AS REQUIRED BY THE U.S. AND MD CONSTITUTIONS? (2) MAY A PARTY THAT HAS AGREED IN A CONSENT ORDER TO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER A STATUTE OR ORDINANCE LATER CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE OR ORDINANCE AND OF THE AGREED REMEDY?

In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Amber R. and Mark R. - Case No. 134, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - IN A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASE WHERE THE COURT DOES NOT MAKE A FINDING THAT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO WARRANT TERMINATING A NATURAL PARENTS’ RIGHTS IN THEIR CHILD, WHAT LEVEL OF PARENTS UNFITNESS IS REQUIRED TO PERMANENTLY SEVER THE PARENT CHILD RELATIONSHIP?

In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Ta'Niya C. - Case No. 133, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - (1) DID THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION TO TERMINATE RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT EMPLOYED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD IN DENYING THE PETITION TO TERMINATE RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS?

Kearney, Gail A., Individually, etc., et al. v. Robert S. Berger - Case No. 125, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - STATUTORY - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT APPELLANTS DID NOT HAVE GOOD CAUSE FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER MD. CODE, ANN., CPJ SECTIONS 3-2A-04(b)(5) AND 3-2A-05(j)? (2) DID APPELLEE WAIVE HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHEN HE UNILATERALLY WAIVED ARBITRATION AND FAILED TO PLEAD ANY OBJECTION IN HIS ANSWER? (3) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE APPELLANTS’ CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED EXPERT WAS INSUFFICIENT?

Marshall, Hugh Shaka v. State - Case No. 357, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DOES A WARRANT APPLICATION IN LIGHT OF HOLMES v. STATE, 368 MD. 506 (2002) ESTABLISH A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A HOME WHERE IT AVERS THAT THE SUSPECT WAS SELLING MARIJUANA OUT OF HIS CAR AT AN UNSPECIFIED LOCATION IN THE SAME TOWN AND STORING THE MARIJUANA IN THE CAR? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDE THAT THE OFFICERS PROPERLY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON THE SEARCH WARRANT?

John L. Mattingly Construction, Co., Inc. v. Harford Underwriters Insurance Company - Case No. 136, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CONTRACT - (1) WHEN THE STANDARD AIA DOCUMENT A107-1997 IMPOSES NO TEMPORAL LIMITATION ON WAIVERS OF SUBROGATION, CAN A MARYLAND COURT DISREGARD THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT AND IMPOSE SUCH A TEMPORAL LIMITATION THAT PRECLUDES APPLICATION OF WAIVERS OF SUBROGATION TO POST-CONSTRUCTION LOSSES ABSENT ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY LOOKING FOR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE BEYOND THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE CONTRACT WHEN THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE WAS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE NO MARYLAND CASES HAD PREVIOUSLY INTERPRETED THE PHRASE “OTHER PROPERTY INSURANCE APPLICABLE TO THE WORK”?

Margaret McHale v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC, et al. - Case No. 123, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRITICAL AREA LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PROVISION OF THE 2008 AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREA LAW REQUIRING RESTORATION, MITIGATION AND ABATEMENT OF CRITICAL AREA VIOLATIONS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF A CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO CRITICAL AREA VIOLATIONS IN LITIGATION AT THE TIME THAT THE AMENDMENTS TOOK EFFECT?

Wilma L. Phoebus d/b/a Phoebus Electric Company v. Hartford Insurance Company - Case No. 144, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CONTRACT - (1) WHERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, MAY A COURT LOOK TO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE BEYOND THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE CONTRACT TO FIND AN AMBIGUITY? (2) WHETHER A WAIVER OF SUBROGATION PROVISION IN A CONTRACT APPLIES TO POST-CONSTRUCTION LOSSES, WHERE THE CLEAR AND PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT DOES NOT IMPOSE A TEMPORAL LIMITATION?

State of Maryland v. Larry Johnson - Case No. 140, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) IS A DENIAL OF A SENTENCE REVIEW THAT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NOT APPEALABLE? (2) AFTER RESPONDENT FILED HIS PRO SE REVIEW APPLICATION, WHICH TRIGGERED THE AUTOMATIC PANEL UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ENSURE RESPONDENT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATION OR THAT HE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE APPLICATION?

State of Maryland v. Brian Gerard Kanavy, Shadi Sabbagh, Dennis Harding, Mark Richard Sainato and Jason Willie Robinson - Case No. 129, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHERE THE INDICTMENTS CONTAINED ALL THE ELEMENTS REQUIRED TO CHARGE RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN FOCUSING ON SURPLUS LANGUAGE REGARDING THE MANNER AND MEANS BY WHICH THE DEFENDANTS COMMITTED THE CRIME TO FIND THAT THE INDICTMENTS FAILED TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GOING BEYOND THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE INDICTMENTS TO FIND A BASIS FOR DISMISSAL, CONTRARY TO STATE v. TAYLOR, 371 Md. 617 (2002)? (3) DOES THE “CONDUCT” REQUIRED FOR RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT INCLUDE ACTS OF OMISSION WHERE THERE IS A DUTY TO ACT?

State of Maryland v. George Matthrews - Case No. 135, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY DENY RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WITHOUT A HEARING WHEN THE MOTION WAS NOT TIMELY FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DATE THAT THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED SENTENCE AFTER RESPONDENT PLED GUILTY? (2) WAS THE FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL HARMLESS ERROR WHEN THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE MOTION?

State of Maryland v. Lewis Rich - Case No. 128, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - IS A FINDING OF PLAIN ERROR IN A GIVEN JURY INSTRUCTION INAPPROPRIATE WHERE THE DEFENSE INITIATED AND RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE ERROR BY SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING THE UNSUPPORTED INSTRUCTION?

Yared Tesfaye v. Gwendolyn Palmer - Case No. 130, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 3-1505(d) OF THE PEACE ORDER STATUTE, CJP SECTIONS 3-1501 ET. SEQ., WHEN IT BARRED PETITIONER FROM HIS OWN HOME FOR SIX MONTHS?

Yared Tesfaye v. Ruby Palmer - Case No. 131, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 3-1505(d) OF THE PEACE ORDER STATUTE, CJP SECTIONS 3-1501 ET. SEQ., WHEN IT BARRED PETITIONER FROM HIS OWN HOME FOR SIX MONTHS?

Alan Tyler, et al v. City College - Case No. 126, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE (1) SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 24 OF THE MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? (2) DOES NOT VIOLATE THE STATE AND COUNTY FAIR HOUSING ACTS? AND (3) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PERMISSIBLE ZONING BY THE CITY OF COLLEGE PARK?

The Villas at Cattail Creek, LLC v. Howard County, Maryland - Case No. 124, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - IS A PARTY ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION’S DECLARATION OF RIGHTS IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A COUNTY BASED ON AN ALLEGED CODE VIOLATION, IN WHICH THE COUNTY INITIALLY DEMANDED PAYMENT OF A FINE OF $14,000, PLUS ADDITIONAL FINES OF UP TO $1,000 PER DAY FOR ANY CONTINUING VIOLATION?

Walmart Stores, Inc., et al. v. Larry Holmes, Sr. et ux. - Case No. 141, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 9-632 OF THE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ARTICLE OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MD THAT A SPOUSE HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT THEIR SURVIVING SPOUSE SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE MARITAL TIE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A COURT ORDER, DECREE OR OTHER ADJUDICATION ESTABLISHING A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY SUPPORT?

Willis, Valerie J. v. Montgomery County, Maryland - Case No. 138, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - WHAT CONSTITUTES AN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM IN THAT – MUST THE DECISION OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION GRANT OR DENY A BENEFIT TO BE APPEALABLE?

Worsham, Michael C. v. Robert Greenfield and Romualda Greenfield - Case No. 139, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - ATTORNEYS’ FEES - WHETHER A PARTY HAS “INCURRED” ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES OR COSTS UNDER RULE 1-341 WHEN THAT PARTY DID NOT ACTUALLY PAY ANY ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS?

 

Denied December 9, 2009

MAMSI Insurance v. Wu - Misc. No. 8 (motion for reconsideration)

 

Granted December 4, 2009

State of Maryland v. Terris Terrell Lockett - Case No. 122, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT MUST BE SUPPRESSED WHERE THAT HOLDING EXPANDS THE CONCEPT OF “IMPROPER INDUCEMENT” TO INCLUDE SITUATIONS WHERE THE INTERROGATOR MAKES NO OFFERS OR PROMISES IN EXCHANGE FOR A STATEMENT; IS BASED UPON A FLATLY INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE RECORD; AND ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDES THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT KNOWINGLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL?