Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2009

 

Denied June 21, 2010

Beck v. State Board of Physicians - Pet. Docket No. 79
Blanken v. Standard Fire Insurance - Pet. Docket No. 90
Byrd, Kendall Cherod v. State - Pet. Docket No. 104
Camaioni v. St. Mary's County - Pet. Docket No. 134
Chase, Jerome Randolph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 114
Collins v. Takoma Park - Pet. Docket No. 99
Daniel, Reginald E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 113
D.H. Moving v. Locher - Pet. Docket No. 101
Enoch v. Goodman - Pet. Docket No. 110
Fitzgerald v. Alexander - Pet. Docket No. 30
Fogle, Thomas v. State - Pet. Docket No. 96
Genesis Office v. St. Vincent Depaul - Pet. Docket No. 50
Grant-Bey, Bernard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 76
Green, Armando v. State - Pet. Docket No. 128
Harrell v. Monteverde - Pet. Docket No. 56
Harris, Treston L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 103
Hicks, Jamal v. State - Pet. Docket No. 77
In Re: Adoption of Darjal C. - Pet. Docket No. 86
Ingram, Renard Jerry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 119
Jones, Johnnie W. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 122
Keyes v. Lerman - Pet. Docket No. 124
Khushlani v. Dohnji - Pet. Docket No. 109
Knee, Clifton Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 82
McClung, Virgil Ira v. State - Pet. Docket No. 81
Memic v. Bank of America - Pet. Docket No 551*
Moss v. Miller - Pet. Docket No. 74
Nash, Floyd Reynaldo v. State - Pet. Docket No. 123
Neal, Larry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 125
Newmus, Bryant v. State - Pet. Docket No. 115
Parker v. Bona Fide Mortgage - Pet. Docket No. 19
Prince George's County v. Pearson - Pet. Docket No. 108
Plummer v. CSX - Pet. Docket No. 88
Robinson, Joseph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 85
Rodriguez, Jose Luiz v. State - Pet. Docket No. 120
Royster, Anthony Ollen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 78
Savage, Daryl v. State - Pet. Docket 91
Shady Grove Hospital v. Wilson - Pet. Docket No. 132
Shamit v. Jawhar - Pet. Docket No. 51
Shifflett, Joshua Duane Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 57
Smith, Patrick Darbell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 102
Smith v. Secretary - Pet. Docket No. 84
State v. Aubrey David Wilder - Pet. Docket No. 126
Taylor ELectric v. First Mariner Bank - Pet. Docket No. 112
Thomas, Tyrone v. State - Pet. Docket No. 106
Thompson, Thomas II v. State - Pet. Docket No. 111
Tri-County v. Kids First Swin - Pet. Docket No. 107
Vadas v. Hopkins - Pet. Docket No. 75
Walker v. Centre Insurance - Pet. Docket No. 92
Washington, Keith Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 95
Weiner v. MVA - Pet. Docket No. 130
Wenger v. Pay Pal - Pet. Docket No. 83

 

Granted June 18, 2010

Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays, et al. v. Moreland, LLC, et al. - Case No. 55

ISSUES - CRITICAL AREA LAW - (1) DID THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT REASONING FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS THAT THE VARIANCE APPLICANTS HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT WATER QUALITY AND THAT THEIR VARIANCES WERE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD THE APPLICANTS RELIEF FROM THE APPLICABLE CRITICAL AREA DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS MUST CONSIDER THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF HOMES ON NEIGHBORING PARCELS WHEN SUCH COMMUNITY COMPARISONS ARE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED UNDER OTHER VARIANCE CRITERIA? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT INCORRECTLY APPLY THE PRESUMPTION THAT CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED IN THE BUFFER WILL HARM WATER QUALITY?

In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Chaden M. - Case No. 56

ISSUE - STATUTORY - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT A NON-DISABLED PARENT HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASE THAT ARISES PRIOR TO THE ASSERTION OF THAT RIGHT THROUGH THE FILING OF AN OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR COUNSEL?

Mansfield, Christopher v. State - Case No. 53

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS EXCUSED BY THE DOCTRINE OF MANIFEST NECESSITY WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE ELECTS TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF A BENCH TRIAL OVER DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBJECTION BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN BY THE JUDGE PRIOR TO TRIAL?

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Frank William Loane, Jr. - Case No. 52

ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- DID THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CORRECTLY CONCLUDE THAT MD. CODE ANN., TRANSP. II, SECTION 16-205.1(f) DOES NOT REQUIRE THE MVA TO PROVE THE EXACT LOCATION WHEN A SUSPECTED DRUNK DRIVER WAS DETAINED AFTER DRIVING ON A “HIGHWAY OR PRIVATE PROPERTY USED BY THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL,” BEFORE SUSPENDING THE MOTORIST’S LICENSE FOR A TEST REFUSAL?

Ogundipe, Olusegun v. State - Case No. 54

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER THERE IS A DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO DISCLOSE A SIGNED VERDICT SHEET TO A DEFENDANT OR HIS COUNSEL BEFORE THE JURY IS DISCHARGED WHEN THAT VERDICT SHEET HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN VIOLATION OF THE TRIAL COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS?

Stalker Brothers, Inc., et al. v. Alcoa Concrete and Masonry, Inc. - Case No. 57

ISSUES - STATUTORY - MD HOME IMPROVEMENT LAW - (1) WHETHER AN UNLICENSED SUBCONTRACTOR’S CLAIM FOR NON-PAYMENT SHOULD BE HONORED IN A MARYLAND COURT? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ADHERE TO PRINCIPLES OF STARE DECISIS? (3) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE STATUTE CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR COURT DECISIONS?

State v. Derrick P. Kelley-Dirocco - Case No. 50

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - HICKS 180 DAY RULE - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DISMISSING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENT BASED ON NOTIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS?

Tyner, Donte Lamon and Tavon Berson Tyner v. State - Case No. 51

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF A DETECTIVE THAT INITIALLY STATED SHE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE BUT SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED A STATEMENT INCULPATING PETITIONERS? (2) WHERE TWO DEFENDANTS WITH IDENTICAL INTERESTS ARE JOINTLY TRIED AND ONE OBJECTS TO EVIDENCE EQUALLY DAMAGING TO BOTH, SHOULD THE OBJECTION BE DEEMED TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE AS TO BOTH?

 

Denied June 11, 2010

4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State - Pet. Docket No 14
Addison, Vernon D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 73
Agyei-Kode, Kujoe v. State - Pet. Docket No.523*
Alston, Rozza v. State - Pet. Docket No. 39
Belizaire, Oswald v. State - Pet. Docket No. 12
Benitez, Victoriano v. State - Pet. Docket No. 42
Bennett, Chauncey D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 48
Booker v. Johnson - Pet. Docket No. 55
Bray v. Aberdeen Police - Pet. Docket No. 32
Camaioni v. Verizon - Pet. Docket No. 40
Campbell, David C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 608*
Collier v. Bank of America - Pet. Docket No. 62
Darby v. Marley Cooling - Pet. Docket No. 70
Dickinson, William B. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 60
Dize v. Association of Pilots - Pet. Docket No. 65
Douglas, Eugene v. State - Pet. Docket No. 594*
Dougherty v. College Park - Pet. Docket No. 596*
Engleman v. Miller - Pet. Docket No. 486* (motion for reconsideration)
Freedman v. Comcast - Pet. Docket No. 54
Fusha v. Castle Toyota - Pet. Docket No. 2
George v. Church-Purnell - Pet. Docket No. 449 (motion for reconsideration)
Givens, Albert Gustav v. State - Pet. Docket No. 36
Guttman v. Baltimore - Pet. Docket No.33 and cross-petition both denied.
Harding, Dean Kenmore v. State - Pet. Docket No. 27 - denied.
Harris, Lloyd Alvin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 44
Howard, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 28
Hutchinson v. Barclay - Pet. Docket No. 45
James, Robert Leon Chase v. State - Pet. Docket No. 561*
Kalos v. U.S. Surety - Pet. Docket No. 567* (motion for reconsideration)
Kargbo, Fatu Kalie v. State - Pet. Docket No. 59
Kelly, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 160 (motion for reconsideration)
King v. Colmers - Pet. Docket No. 47
Mason, Milford J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 37
Moses v. Little - Pet. Docket No. 539*
O'Malley, Samuel James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 71
Philips v. Hall - Pet. Docket No. 481* (motion for reconsideration)
Simms, Charles Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 31
Smith, Jamal v. State - Pet. Docket No. 46
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 52
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 53
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 63
State v. Jeffrey Lynn Hurd - Pet. Docket No. 26 and cross-petition both denied.
Struve v. Wicomico County - Pet. Docket No. 592*
Traverso, Jaime v. State - Pet. Docket ANo. 72


 

Granted June 9, 2010

BEKA Industries, Inc. v. Worcester County Board of Education - Case No. 47 (petition and cross-petition granted).

ISSUES - STATE GOVERNMENT - (1) CAN A COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION USE THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TO DENY PAYMENT TO A CONTRACTOR THAT FULLY PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH THE BOARD OF EDUCATION? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT INCORRECTLY APPLY THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD IN REVIEWING THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF THE CONTRACTOR’S MOTION IN LIMINE? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY FAILING TO AFFIRM THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT? (4) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY ALLOWING THE BOARD TO RAISE THE EQUITABLE DEFENSE OF RECOUPMENT WHEN THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT THE BOARD HAD NO LEGALLY SUBSISTING AFFIRMATIVE CLAIM? (5) DOES CTS. AND JUD. PROCEEDINGS SEC. 5-518(c) APPLY TO CONTRACT CLAIMS AGAINST A COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION?

James E. Clarke, et al, Substitute Trustees v. Barbara Ann Miles, et vir. - Case No. 38

ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE TRUSTEES FAILED TO COMPLY WITH REAL PROPERTY ART., SEC. 7-105.1 (c)(4)(ii)(1)(C)?

County Council of Prince George's County, Maryland Sitting as the District Council, et al. v. Dedra Billings, et al. - Case No. 46

ISSUES - ZONING - REGIONAL DISTRICT ACT - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COUNCIL’S ACTIONS WITHDRAWING ELECTIONS TO REVIEW THE PLANNING BOARD’S DECISION IN DDS-564 AND THE EXAMINER’S DECISION IN S.E. 4549 WERE “FINAL DECISIONS”? (2) SHOULD THE LOWER COURT HAVE HELD THE DISTRICT COUNCIL WITHDRAWAL ACTIONS “FINAL DECISIONS” WHEN NO PARTY WAS ELIGIBLE TO CHALLENGE THEM IN THE TRIAL COURT? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT CITIZEN OPPONENTS ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WHEN THE DISTRICT COUNCIL MAKES AN ELECTION TO REVIEW A ZONING MATTER?

Mark Denisyuk v. State - Case No. 45

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL CAN NEVER BE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ADVISE HIS OR HER CLIENT OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA IN LIGHT OF SUPREME COURT DECISION PADILLA V. KENTUCKY? (2) IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO POST CONVICTION RELIEF AS A RESULT OF HIS ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA?

Carole M. Fagnani, et al. v. Jeffrey B. Fisher, et al, Substitute Trustees - Case No. 40

ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - (1) ARE THE SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES AUTHORIZED TO FORECLOSE LESS THAN THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY PLEDGED AS SECURITY UNDER THE TERMS OF A UNIFORM DEED OF TRUST SECURED BY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON ONE INDIVISIBLE LOT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF PARTITION OR SUBDIVISION AS A MATTER OF LAW? (2) IS THE POWER OF SALE PROVISION IN A UNIFORM DEED OF TRUST SUBJECT TO STRICT CONSTRUCTION? (3) WHAT AUTHORITY DO THE RESPONDENTS HAVE UNDER THE POWER OF SALE PROVISION IN A UNIFORM DEED OF TRUST WHERE THE RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT ONE CO-TENANT’S SIGNATURE ON THE DEED OF TRUST IS FORGED? (4) DID THE LOWER COURTS FAIL TO PROPERLY APPLY THE STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD TO THE CONDUCT OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE?

In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Tatitianna B. - Case No. 36

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - CINA - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY DETERMINING THAT “RISK ASSESSMENT” WAS FIELD OF EXPERT STUDY AND BY CONCLUDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT’S WITNESS WAS QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT IN THIS ALLEGED FIELD?

Coralie Kurstin v. Bromberg Rosenthal LLP, et al. - Case No. 49

ISSUES - COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE - (1) IS THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE A TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE ONLY THAT IS NOT VIOLATED UNLESS THE INFORMATION GAINED IS ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL SUCH THAT THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST PRELIMINARY REVELATION OF INFORMATION? (2) DOES MD APPELLATE PROCEDURE OR SUPREME CT. CASE MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC. V. CARPENTER, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009) ACT AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO APPELLATE REVIEW UNDER THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY ORDERS INVOLVING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE? (3) DO MD DISCOVERY RULES PERMIT INQUIRY INTO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PROTECTED MATTERS WHEN NO CLAIM HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF A CLAIM CAN BE BROUGHT?

Mary B. v. Chicago Title Insurance Company f/u/o U.S. Bank National Association, et al. - Case No. 42

ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THE REAL PROPERTY ART., SEC. 3-201 GIVES PRIORITY TO AN UNRECORDED DEED OF TRUST OVER A JUDGMENT LIENHOLDER?

Maryland Department of State Police v. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches - Case No. 41

ISSUES - STATE GOVERNMENT - MD PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT (PIA) - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINE THAT THE REQUESTED RECORDS OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT ARE “PERSONNEL RECORDS,” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MANDATORY NONDISCLOSURE PROVISION OF PIA, MD. CODE ANN., STATE GOV’T SEC. 10-616(i)? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY ORDERING THE DISCLOSURE OF PERSONNEL RECORDS WITH REDACTION OF ONLY THE NAMES AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES AND THE NAMES AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF COMPLAINANTS, AND BY ORDERING THE DISCLOSURE TO PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL, WITHOUT ANY REDACTION, OF ALL OTHER SIMILAR PERSONNEL RECORDS THAT HAD NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT IN CAMERA?

John Menefee, et al. v. State - Case No. 37

ISSUE - HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - NEGLIGENCE - WHETHER THE STATE OF MARYLAND HAS WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO CONDUCT STATE PROGRAMS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ARTICLE?

Babak Najafi v. Motor Vehicle Administration - Case No. 44

ISSUES - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL PRIOR TO AN ELECTION ON SUBMITTING TO A CHEMICAL BREATH TEST DID NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION HEARING AND IN DENYING HIS MOTION FOR “NO ACTION” ON THOSE GROUNDS? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT PETITION HAD REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BREATH TEST WHEN (A) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PETITION EVER REFUSED; AND (B) THE POLICE OFFICER ASSUMED THAT PETITIONER HAD REFUSED AFTER THE PETITIONER WAS UNABLE TO REACH AN ATTORNEY WITH ONE ATTEMPTED PHONE CALL?

Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., et al. v. Carl L. Saville - Case No. 39

ISSUES - JOINT TORT-FEASORS ACT - ASBESTOS - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED UNDER THE JOINT TORT-FEASORS ACT TO ACCOUNT FOR PAYMENTS THAT RESPONDENT RECEIVED FROM SECTION 524 TRUSTS? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT RESPONDENT SATISFIED THE “FREQUENCY, REGULARITY, PROXIMITY” TEST WHERE RESPONDENT DEMONSTRATED THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE WAS EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT DEFENDANT WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO MOVE FOR JNOV ON ITS CROSS-CLAIMS BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE FOR A JUDGMENT?

State v. Constance Walker - Case No. 48

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT IMPROPERLY EXPAND THIS COURT’S LIMITED HOLDING IN THOMPSON V. STATE, 284 Md. 113 (1978), WHEN IT FOUND THAT A TRIAL COURT MUST CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INDIGENCE INQUIRY EVEN THOUGH A DEFENDANT HAS NEITHER (1) APPLIED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT PRIOR TO TRIAL FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL AS SET FORTH IN RULE 4-202(a) NOR (2) REQUESTED AT TRIAL THAT THE TRIAL COURT APPOINT COUNSEL?

Weichert Co. of Maryland v. Dorothy Crago Faust - Case No. 43

ISSUES - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - MD WAGE ACT - (1) CAN AN EMPLOYEE WHO BREACHES HER DUTY OF LOYALTY WHICH IS AT THE HEART OF THE CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP, SEEK TO ENFORCE CERTAIN OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH SHE MATERIALLY BREACHED? (2) CAN A PARTY RECOVER ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT PROVISION THAT PROVIDES REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES INCURRED WHEN A THIRD PARTY RETAINED AND PAID COUNSEL AND THE PARTY DID NOT PAY ANY ATTORNEYS FEES NOR HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO PAY ATTORNEYS FEES?