Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2010

 

Denied January 24, 2011

Ahan v. Modanlo - Pet. Docket No. 468
Bingel v. Gonsalves - Pet. Docket No. 461
Blair v. Donowa - Pet. Docket No. 399
Chen v. Freedom Carwash - Pet. Docket No. 564
Cinque, Anne and Julius v. Hilltop Farms - Pet. Docket No. 458
Conner, Raymond Lamar v. State - Pet. Docket No. 445
Corbett, Andre Delshawn v. State - Pet. Docket No. 448
Dorsey, Desmond Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 451
Fort Meade Speedy v. Petroleum Marketing - Pet. Docket No. 555
Gilmore, Jeffrey Eric v. State - Pet. Docket No. 404
Hargrave v. Melwood - Pet. Docket No. 405
Harris, Darrell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 443
Harris, Derrick D. H. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 403
Harris, Vernon Edwin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 462 and cross-petition
Impallaria v. Kramer - Pet. Docket No. 389
Johnson, Durant J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 252 (motion for reconsideration)
Kelly, Kenneth v. State - Pet. Docket No. 463 and cross-petition
Koffley v. Koffley - Pet. Docket No. 464
Kreamer v. Helton - Pet. Docket No. 454
Lasater v. Guttman - Pet. Docket No. 437
Lawrence, Lincoln K. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 455
Lee v. Goettner Construction - Pet. Docket No. 438
Lay, John R. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 344
McNeil, Rudolph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 434
Moll v. Shrybman - Pet. Docket No. 449
Okoro v. Robinson - Pet. Docket No. 430
Ovido-Contreras, Mario Alexander v. State - Pet. Docket No. 453
Papadimitriou v. Papadimitriou - Pet. Docket No. 465
Petroleum Marketing v. Fort Meade Speedy - Pet. Docket No. 459
Riddix v. Deutsch - Pet. Docket No. 467
Riffin v. Dept. of the Environment - Pet. Docket No. 435
Small, Larry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 442
Smith, Zenno III v. State - Pet. Docket No. 444
Southern MD Hospital v. Miller - Pet. Docket No. 500
Walker v. Princeton - Pet. Docket No. 326
Weiss, Alex Arhur v. State - Pet. Docket No. 471
Williams v. Nabavian - Pet. Docket No. 456
Williamson, Sherman L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 457
Woody, Todd Kenneth v. State - Pet. Docket No. 469
Young, Wayne Stephen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 331 (motion for reconsideration)

 

Granted January 21, 2011

Barnes, Kenneth E. v. State - Case No. 124, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS IT ILLEGAL TO RETROACTIVELY IMPOSE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION UNDER MD’S 1997 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT ON PETITIONER WHERE HIS ALLEGED OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED BEFORE JULY 1, 1997, AND HE WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OLD 1995 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT?

Boland, John L. et al. v. Boland, Sean F. X., et al. - Case No. 123, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CORPORATIONS & ASSOCIATIONS - (1) ARE CIRCUIT COURTS POWERLESS TO CONSIDER IMPORTANT ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES OF CORPORATE DIRECTORS & THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, WHICH MAY BE AT ISSUE IN A DERIVATIVE ACTION, IF A CORPORATE LITIGATION COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT CONTINUANCE OF THE LITIGATION & RESOLUTION OF THOSE ISSUES WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CORPORATION AS A BUSINESS ENTITY? (2) MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FIND THAT A LITIGATION COMMITTEE’S REVIEW OF A SELF-DEALING TRANSACTION WAS REASONABLE & DISMISS DERIVATIVE LITIGATION BASED UPON THAT REVIEW IF THE COMMITTEE CONCEDEDLY APPLIED A LESSOR STANDARD OF REVIEW TO THE CHALLENGED TRANSACTION? (3) MAY THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS ON THEIR OPPRESSION CLAIMS BASED UPON ASSERTED FACTUAL FINDINGS OF A CORPORATION LITIGATION COMMITTEE?


Boland, John L. et al. v. Boland Trane Associates, Inc., et al. - Case No. 129, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CORPORATIONS & ASSOCIATIONS - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - (1) DOES THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONSTITUTE A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS THAT BARS THE ASSERTION OF INDIVIDUAL, NON-DERIVATIVE CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AS RES JUDICATA? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CORPORATIONS ON THEIR COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHERE IT DID SO BY RESOLVING DISPUTED FACTS & FAILING TO CONSIDER DEFENSES BECAUSE IT FOUND THEM TO BE BARRED AS RES JUDICATA?

Cox, Ronald v. State - Case No. 125, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY DETERMINE THAT ADMITTING PETITIONER’S NON-TESTIMONIAL ADMISSION DID NOT VIOLATE THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS? (3) WAS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER’S CONVICTIONS?

Dumbarton Improvement Association, Inc., et al. v. Druid Ridge Cemetery Company, el al. - Case No. 128, September Term 2010).

ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - (1) IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN A DEED THAT REQUIRES THAT CEMETERY PROPERTY BE “MAINTAINED & OPERATED AS A CEMETERY” UNAMBIGUOUS & ENFORCEABLE AS WRITTEN? (2) IS AN OTHERWISE UNAMBIGUOUS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RENDERED AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE OF A PERCEIVED LACK OF CLARITY IN THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COVENANT SHOULD BE ENFORCED? (3) IS A PARTY WHO SEEKS TO AVOID ENFORCEMENT OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE NOT ONLY THAT A RADICAL OR DRAMATIC CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES HAS OCCURRED SINCE THE COVENANT WAS FIRST IMPOSED BUT ALSO THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE COVENANT WOULD NO LONGER BE SERVED BY ITS ENFORCEMENT? (4) IS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT TO AVOID ENFORCEMENT OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEN THE UNCONTRAVERTED EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THOSE CHANGES WERE ALREADY OCCURRING & ANTICIPATED TO CONTINUE AT THE TIME THE COVENANT WAS FIRST IMPOSED? (5) ARE PRINCIPLES OF MACRO-ECONOMICS & CONCERN FOR ACHIEVING THE MOST PRODUCTIVE & BENEFICIAL USE OF PROPERTY RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DETERMINING THE ENFORCEABILITY OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT? (6) CAN A SELF-CREATED CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES BE SUFFICIENT TO AVOID ENFORCEMENT OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT?

King, Ariel Rosita v. Pfeifer, Michael Herbert - Case No. 127, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - STATUTORY LAW - (1) WAS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION & A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION FOR A TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER (TPO) ISSUED BY ONE TRIAL JUDGE TO BE “QUASHED” BY ANOTHER “DUTY” TRIAL JUDGE IN AN UNSCHEDULED EX PARTE HEARING? (2) WAS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE SECOND (DUTY) TRIAL JUDGE TO DENY A MOTION TO VACATE HIS ORDER QUASHING THE TPO IN LIGHT OF THE FRAUD, MISTAKE & IRREGULARITIES SURROUNDING ENTRY OF THAT ORDER? (3) WAS IT ERROR FOR THE LOWER COURT TO SUMMARILY DENY A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SEEKING TO CORRECT FACTUAL ERRORS IN ITS OPINION BELOW WHERE DOCUMENTATION WAS PRESENTED THAT THE OPINION SET FORTH ERRONEOUS FACTS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FINDINGS BY THE TRIAL COURT AND ARE CLEARLY CONTRADICTED BY THE RECORD IN THE TRIAL COURT?

Lawson, Tryone v. Bowie State University - Case No. 119, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - PERSONNEL & PENSION - WHETHER THE ALJ ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEE MADE A PROTECTED DISCLOSURE UNDER STATE PERSONNEL & PENSIONS SECTION 5-305?

Montgomery County, Maryland v. Deibler, Kenneth- Case No. 120, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRET THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION STATUTE TO PERMIT THE INCLUSION OF DISCRETIONARY OVERTIME HOURS AS PART OF THE CLAIMANT’S “WAGE EARNING CAPACITY”?

Silva, Enrique Pizzaro v. State - Case No. 126, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT TWO KEY STATE’S WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES, WHERE ONE WITNESS ADMITTEDLY KNEW OF THE PERPETRATORS’ INTENT TO “HARM” & “DISAPPEAR” THE VICTIMS & ADMITTEDLY ACTED AS A “LOOKOUT” & THE OTHER WITNESS ADMITTEDLY WAITED IN HIS CAR WHILE THE VICTIMS WERE MURDERED TO ENABLE A GETAWAY?

Poole, George v. Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc., et al. - Case No. 130, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - TORTS - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - (1) WHETHER THE DECISIONS OF ALLEN V. MARRIOT WORLDWIDE CORP ET AL. & THOMAS V. PANCO MANAGEMENT OF MARYLAND AS APPLIED TO THE INSTANT CASE WHICH HOLDS THAT THE DEFENSE OF THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK CAN BE APPLIED EVEN WHEN A PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISK OR HARM ARE ERRONEOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW? (2) WHETHER ALLEN IMPERMISSIBLY USURPS THE FUNCTION OF THE TRIER OF FACT BY ALLOWING A COURT ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DECIDE A QUESTION OF “REASONABLENESS” WHEN SUCH A QUESTION MUST IN ALL CASES BE DECIDED BY A JURY OR FACT FINDER?

State v. Getachew, Asegede - Case No. 118, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE POST CONVICTION COURT ERR IN SETTING ASIDE APPELLEE’S GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND THAT HIS ATTORNEY AT THE TIME RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BY GIVING MISADVICE ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PLEA JUDGE TOLD RESPONDENT TO ASSUME THAT HE WOULD BE DEPORTED AND RESPONDENT THEN AFFIRMED THAT HE STILL WANTED TO PLEAD GUILTY? (2) DID THE POST CONVICTION COURT ERR IN ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO TESTIFY AT THE POST CONVICTION HEARING BY WAY OF TELEPHONIC HOOK-UP?

Toms, Robert Andrew v. State - Case No. 121, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) CAN A DEFENDANT BE CONVICTED OF UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF PROPERTY UNDER MD. CODE, CRIM. LAW, SEC. 7-203 WHEN HE HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OWNER WHICH PERMITS HIM TO USE THE VEHICLE? (2) MAY PAROLE EVIDENCE BE ADMITTED TO SUPPLEMENT & AMEND AN EXISTING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT SQUARELY ADDRESSES & SPEAKS TO THE AUTHORIZED USE OF A SPECIFIC VEHICLE? (3) DOES AGREEMENT NOT TO TERMINATE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT FURNISH SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION FOR ANY & ALL FUTURE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY BOUND PARTIES?

Wietzke, Douglas et ux. v. The Chesapeake Conference Association, et al. - Case No. 122, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - (1) DO MD PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS 20:1 & 20:2 CONFLICT WITH THE MD LAW OF STRICT LIABILITY NUISANCE ESTABLISHED BY THIS COURT? (2) WERE THE PETITIONERS IMPROPERLY DENIED A JURY INSTRUCTION: (A) WHICH REFLECTED THE STRICT LIABILITY LAW OF NUISANCE IN MD WHEN THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT COMPLETELY FAILED TO ADDRESS STRICT LIABILITY; (B) REFLECTING MD LAW THAT COUNTY APPROVAL DOES NOT ABSOLVE A DEFENDANT OF NUISANCE LIABILITY; AND (C) REFLECTING MD LAW THAT A DEFENDANT IS NOT ABSOLVED OF NUISANCE LIABILITY MERELY BECAUSE OTHER SOURCES MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE NUISANCE? (3) DID THE COURT ERR IN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENT COUNTY WHEN THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATED, AND WERE GIVEN NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS, OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY CODE ORDINANCES AS A RESULT OF THE FLOODING OF THE PETITIONERS’ PROPERTY?

Maryland Transportation Authority v. Maryland Transportation Authority Police Lodge #34 of the Fraternal Order of Police - Case No. 131, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY HOLDING THAT A ONE-PAGE MEMORANDUM WITH INDEFINITE TERMS CONSTITUTE AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT WHERE THE SOLE CONSIDERATION OFFERED FOR THE CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A STATE PROGRAM WAS A PROMISE TO SECURE THE DEFEAT OF PENDING LEGISLATION BY EXERCISING INFLUENCE OVER LEGISLATORS? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE "CONTRACT" IT CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A STATE AGENCY TO EXPEND $9.8 MILLION TO PROCURE, MAINTAIN AND REPLACE TAKE-HOME PATROL VEHICLES IS NEVERTHELESS EXEMPT FROM STATE PROCUREMENT LAWS INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT TO EXHAUSE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE THE MSBCA?