Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2009

 

Denied July 23, 2010

Brown v. MVA - Pet. Docket No. 1
Chang v. Mantzouratos - Pet. Docket No. 148
Cochran v. Griffith Energy - Pat. Docket No. 136
Collins v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 248
Everett, Gregory Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 252
Farrar. Prince v. State - Pet. Docket No. 97
Farrelly v. Mazer - Pet. Docket No. 222
Handy, Mark Gregory v. State - Pet. Docket No. 152
Harris v. Horning - Pet. Docket No. 153
Hill, Donald I. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docet No. 530* (motion for reconsideration)
James, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 138
Johnson, Gregory v. State - Pet. Docket No. 137
Keys, Wendell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 587*
Kranz, William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 164
Martin, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 154
Massey v. Sowers - Pet Docket No. 144
Menefee v. Monrgomery County - Pet. Docket No. 221
Morris, Wayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 155
Oxbridge v. Park & Planning Commission - Pet. Docket No. 143 (and conditioal cross-petition).
Robinson v. Comptroller - Pet. Docket no. 156
Smith v. Friedman - Pet. Docket No. 142
Walker v. Centre Insurance - Pet. Docket No. 93
Walton, Terrell Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 150
Williams v. Hospice - Pet. Docket No. 139

* September Term 2009

 

Granted July 21. 2010

In Re: David M. - Case No. 63, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - JUVENILE - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN OVERRULING APPELLANT’S OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF A MYSPACE PAGE WITHOUT ADEQUATE PROOF OF ITS AUTHENTICITY? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN RELYING ON THE EXPERT OPINION OF A DETECTIVE EXPERIENCED WITH GANGS AND SOCIAL NETWORKING, WHERE THE DETECTIVE WAS NEITHER OFFERED NOR ACCEPTED AS AN EXPERT? (3) IS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT APPELLANT THREATENED THE WITNESSES?

In Re: Shirley B., Jordan B., Davon B., and Cedric B. - Case No. 61, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CINA - (1) DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES SATISFY THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT IT MUST MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO FINALIZE THE PERMANENCY PLAN OF REUNIFICATION WHERE A PARENT WAS REFERRED TO SERVICES PERTAINING TO SPECIFIC IMPEDIMENTS TO REUNIFICATION BUT NEVER RECEIVED THOSE SERVICES DUE TO LACK OF FUNDING? (2) WHERE PETITIONER HAD CONCEDEDLY FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S REFERRALS TO SERVICES IDENTIFIED BY THE JUVENILE COURT AS “CRITICAL” FOR EFFORTS AT REUNIFICATION WITH HER CHILDREN, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE THOSE SERVICES SOLELY BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FUNDING DID THE DEPARTMENT SATISFY ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TOWARD REUNIFICATION? (3) DID THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT CHANGED THE PERMANENCY PLANS FOR THE FOUR CHILDREN FROM REUNIFICATION TO ADOPTION?


Peaks, Dwayne Antonio v. State - Case No. 59, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES SECTION 3-104 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO MAKE A PROPER COMPETENCY DETERMINATION PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL AND BEFORE A DEFENDANT CAN BE PERMITTED TO DISCHARGE HIS COUNSEL WHERE A DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY IS CALLED INTO QUESTION AND A COMPETENCY EVALUATION IS ORDERED SUA SPONTE BY THE JUDGE?

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Donald Wade McMillan - Case No. 60, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - DID THE TEST TECHNICIAN’S CERTIFICATION SHOW PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF A REFUSAL OF AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION TEST, SANCTIONED UNDER TRANSP. ARTICLE SECTION 16-205.1 WHEN AFTER AGREEING TO TAKE A BREATH TEST, BEING PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION OF THE BREATH TEST PROCEDURE AND APPEARING IN GOOD HEALTH, THE MOTORIST “REFUSED TO BLOW INTO THE INTOXIMETER”?

Sherwood Brands, Inc., et al. v. Great American Insurance Company - Case No. 62, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - INSURANCE - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY RULING THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT REQUIRED BY SECTION 19-110 OF THE INSURANCE CODE TO SHOW ACTUAL PREJUDICE IN ORDER TO DENY COVERAGE BASED ON THE APPELLANTS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE CONDITION OF THE 2007 INSURANCE POLICY AT ISSUE? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY NOT ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT APPELLEE IS REQUIRED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY APPELLANT IN BOTH UNDERLYING LAWSUITS?

 

Granted July 6, 2010

Citizens Against Slots at the Mall, Anne Arundel County Citizens for Protection Against VLT Facilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Stop Slots at Arundel Mills, et al. v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland LLC et al - Pet. Docket No. 220 (and cross-petition granted).

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) CAN THE CITIZENS OF A COUNTY BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO REFERENDUM ON A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT NEITHER MAKES NOR CONTAINS ANY APPROPRIATION FOR THE CURRENT EXPENSE FOR MAINTAINING STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWING FOR SLOTS EXPRESSLY PRESERVED LOCAL ZONING AUTONOMY, AND NEITHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR STATE STATUTE CONCERNING SLOTS MANDATED ENACTMENT OF ANY ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SLOTS FACILITY IN THAT COUNTY? (2) CAN THE CITIZENS OF A COUNTY BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO REFERENDUM WHERE THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ON THE ISSUE OF REFERABILITY WAS UNTIMELY? (3) WHETHER THE PETITION THAT PETITIONERS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE EACH PETITION PAGE FAILED TO INCLUDE A CIRCULATOR’S “OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE” AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 308(b) OF THE COUNTY CHARTER? (4) WHETHER SECTION 6-209(a)(2) OF THE ELECTION CODE REQUIRED THE LOWER COURT TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND FORGERY TAINTED THE PETITION?

 

Denied July 6, 2010

Thomas, Beck, Fletcher, Iliff, Watson and Board of Educationn of Prince George's County v. Gansler and State Board of Elections - Pet. Docket No. 228.