Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2009

 

Denied March 12, 2010

Bane v. Morrison - Pet. Docket No. 417 (motion for reconsideration)
Bane v. Sigler - Pet. Docket No. 351 (motion for reconsideration)
Berry v. Levering - Pet. Docket No. 533
Brinkley, Joseph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 308 (motion for reconsideration)
Engleman v. Miller - Pet. Docket No, 486
Fisher v. McCrary - Pet. Docket No. 349 (motion for reconsideration)
Fullard, James A. Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 412 (motion for reconsideration)
Green v. Sowers - Pet. Docket No. 538
Hale, TimothyA. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 466
Harcum v. Sales - Pet. Docket No. 460
Hasembuhler, William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 524
Hill, Doanld L. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 530
Jenkins, Gamell A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 508
Johnson, Norman v. State - Pet. Docket No. 541
Justice, Winford v. State - Pet. Docket No. 544
Maldonado, Adrian v. State - Pet. Docket No. 521
Mbongo v. Fairfax Realty - Pet. Docket No. 537
Murray, DuJuan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 527
Orleans v. Greenbelt Homes - Pet. Docket No. 447
Pakalidis v. Hance Point - Pet. Docket No. 528
Papagno v. Papagno - Pet. Docket No. 534
Parks v. Chesapeake Landing - Pet. Docket No. 526
Peth v. Peth - Pet. Docket No. 522
Schaeffer, John Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 448 (motion for reconisideration)
Spear v. GM - Pet. Docket No. 518
Stanley v. Wells Fargo - Pet. Docket No. 535
Thomas, George Peter v. State - Pet. Docket No. 529
Vitaliti v. Willis - Pet. Docket No. 435

 

Granted March 9, 2010

In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B. - Case No. 21, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - CINA - DID JUVENILE COURT ERR IN TERMINATING REUNIFICATION EFFORTS AND IMPLEMENTING A PERMANENCY PLAN OF ADOPTION BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE CHILD HAD LIVED WITH FOSTER PARENTS?

In Re: Layla A. and Mohammad A. - Case No. 19, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CINA - (1) DID LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PRESERVE HIS OBJECTION CONCERNING THE ALLEGED DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS? (2) WAS PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT THAT TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION BY THE PATERNAL RELATIVES NOT PRESERVED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW? (3) DID LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT PETITIONER ACQUIESCED TO THE TRIAL COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY AND GUARDIANSHIP TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER?

Moore, Rodney Taureen v. State - Case No. 20, September Tem 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) IS PROOF OF THE OPERABILITY OF THE FIREARM A PREREQUISITE TO A CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A REGULATED FIREARM? (2) IF SO, WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE OPERABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE?

State v. Thomas B. Harris - Case No. 22, September Term 2010. (petition and contingent cross-petition granted).

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AFTER INFORMING DEFENDANT OF AN INNOCUOUS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE JUDGE’S SECRETARY AND A JUROR?

State v. Fabian Andre Shim - Case No. 18, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID LOWER COURT ERR IN REVERSING THE MURDER CONVICTIONS BECAUSE TRIAL COURT DECLINED TO ASK PROSPECTIVE JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE IF ANY MEMBER OF JURY PANEL HAD “SUCH STRONG FEELINGS CONCERNING THE VIOLENT DEATH OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING” THAT MEMBER WOULD BE UNABLE TO RENDER A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT? (2) DID LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PROPOUNDING A FLIGHT INSTRUCTION BASED ON EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, AND IF THERE WAS ERROR, WAS ERROR HARMLESS?

Wilkens Square, LLLP and Stone and Associates, Inc. v. W.C. Pinkard & Co., Inc. T/A Colliers Pinkard - Case No. 23, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE - (1) IS IT A “DUAL AGENCY” WHERE A BROKER PROVIDES “REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE SERVICES” AS A PAID CONSULTANT TO A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR SEEKING TO PURCHASE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE IN A MARKET AND SIMULTANEOUSLY REPRESENTS THE OWNER OF A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE FOR SALE IN THAT MARKET REQUIRING DISCLOSURE TO THE SELLER? (2) DOES THE PRINCIPAL WHO WAS KEPT IGNORANT OF A DUAL AGENCY BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE DUAL AGENCY PREJUDICED IT? (3) DOES THE FIDUCIARY DUTY THAT A REAL ESTATE BROKER OWES TO A PRINCIPAL INCLUDE ANY OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PRINCIPALS IT REPRESENTS IN SEPARATE BUT RELATED MATTERS?

 

Denied March 2, 2010

Kalos v. US Surety - Pet. Docket No. 567