Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2010

 

Denied April 25, 2011

All About Tan - Pet. Docket No. 601
Allen v. Padilla - Pet. Docket No. 440
Awah v. Public Storage - Pet. Docket No. 577
Carter v. Alburerne - Pet. Docket No. 570
Catrino v. Ocean City - Pet. Docket No. 633
Cunningham v. Bruton, Smith - Pet. Docket No. 485
Daniel v. Eddy & Eckhardt - Pet. Docket No. 617
Davis, Bryant Z. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 627
Drefs v. Chesapeake Ranch - Pet. Docket No. 608
El v. Fisher - Pet. Docket No. 553
Farewell, Ross Franklin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 594
Floyd v. Dept. of Labor - Pet. Docket No. 521
Fusha v. Janack - Pet. Docket No. 528
Greene, Byron James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 520
Gulati v. Chatin - Pet. Docket No. 514
Harden v. Anne Arundel County - Pet. Docket No. 606
Hargett, Kym Lee Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 575
Henderson, Shawn Marquieis v. State - Pet. Docket No. 635
Hester, Steven Ernest v. State - Pet. Docket No. 654
Holbrook, Abraham v. State - Pet. Docket No. 581 (petition and cross-petition)
Hughes, Cleveland v. State - Pet. Docket No. 609
In Re: Adoption of Jahvonte C. - Pet. Docket No. 624
In Re: Cross H. - Pet. Docket No. 626
In Re: Gabrielle C. - Pet. Docket No. 598
Jackson, Steven v. State -Pet. Docket No. 579
Johnson, Lamont v. State - Pet. Docket No. 642
Jones, Marvin Lee v. State - Pet. Docket No. 595
Kirsch v. O'Neil - Pet. Docket No. 640
Koffley v. Koffley - Pet. Docket No. 464 (motion for reconsideration)
Lloyd v. Arnacv - Pet. Docket No. 511 (motion for reconsderation)
Logan v. LSP - Pet. Docket No. 630
Logan, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 572 (petition and cross-petition)
McCamie v. Ashford - Pet. Docket No. 629
McDermott v. Discover Bank - Pet. Docket No. 558
McMillian, Sabastian M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 7*
Mezu v. Martin's - Pet. Docket No. 561
Murobha v. Muchai - Pet. Docket No. 541
Naugle v. Old Time Construction - Pet. Docket No. 539
Nivens, Stephen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 590
Ohana v. MVA - Pet. Docket No. 621
Ovalle, Carlos v. State - Pet. Docket No. 582
Papadakis v. Graham - Pet. Docket No. 560
Papadimitriou v. Papadimitriou - Pet. Docket No. 465 (motion for reconsideration)
Polek v. JP Morgan - Pet. Docket No. 646
Richardson, Charles D. IV v. State - Pet. Docket No. 603
Riffin v. Dept. of the Environment - Pet. Docket No. 435 (motion for reconsideration)
Sanders v. County Bank - Pet. Docket No. 615
Simms, John v. State - Pet. Docket No. 613
Smith, Tyron A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 571 (petition and cross-petition)
State v. Leonel Martinez, Jr. - Pet. Docket No. 604
Suddath v. Conover - Pet. Docket No. 634
Taylor, Telvon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 625
Thieret v. Buck - Pet. Docket No. 597
Thompson, Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 612
Trout v. Trout - Pet. Docket No. 620
Tyner, Donald J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 602
Vechery v. State Highway Commission - Pet. Docket No. 631
Williams, Saul v. State - Pet. Docket No. 611
Wilson, Gregory Deshaun v. State - Pet. Docket No. 584

 

Granted April 22, 2011

Hosea Anderson, et ux. v. John S. Burson, et al. - Case No. 8, Sept. Term 2011. (petition and cross-petition granted)

ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES’ PRINCIPAL, DEUTSCHE, WAS “A NONHOLDER IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE WHO HAD THE RIGHTS OF A HOLDER,” WHERE DEUTSCHE FILED A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH DEUTSCHE ADMITTED THAT IT DID NOT POSSESS THE NOTE AT THE TIME THIS CASE WAS FILED? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE TO DETERMINE THAT THE UNENDORSED NOTE WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO DEUTSCHE WHILE DISREGARDING CONTRARY LANGUAGE IN THE POOLING & SERVICING AGREEMENT WHICH CREATED & GOVERNS THE SECURITIZED TRUST? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING INEFFECTIVE AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE NAMED PAYEE AFTER IT HAD TRANSFERRED THE NOTE?

Michelle D'Aoust v. Cindy R. Diamond, Bruce D. Brown, Rosen Hoover, P.A., and Hickory Hills Condominium Association - Case No. 5, Sept. Term 2011. (petition and cross-petition granted)

(1) DOES THE DOCTRINE OF “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” SHIELD TRUSTEES APPOINTED TO MAKE A JUDICIAL SALE FROM LIABILITY FOR (a) FAILING TO PROVIDE PROPERTY OWNER WITH A MANDATORY NOTICE OF TIME, PLACE & TERMS OF SALE “TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS” OF THE RECORD OWNER. (b) MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT THAT THEY HAD COMPLETED WITH THE RULE? (2) ARE THE TRUSTEES ENTITLED TO “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” WHERE PRIOR TO A HEARING ON EXCEPTIONS TO FORECLOSURE SALE, TRUSTEES TOLD THE PETITIONER THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE WITHDRAWING OBJECTIONS TO HER EXCEPTIONS & WOULD ADVISE THE COURT THAT NO HEARING WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE EXCEPTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED? (3) IS THE LOWER COURT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT TRUSTEES ARE ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR MINISTERIAL ACT OF SENDING OUT A REQUIRED NOTICE BECAUSE SUCH ACT IS A “NESTED” MINISTERIAL ACT, “NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT A BROADER DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY VESTED BY THE COURT?” (4) IS THE LOWER COURT CORRECT IN HOLDING “APPELLEES ARE SHIELDED FROM LIABILITY FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AS A MATTER OF LAW” BECAUSE OF THE DOCTRINE OF “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY?” (5) DOES THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PROTECT FORECLOSURE SALE TRUSTEES WHO NEGLIGENTLY DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF A HEARING ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE SALE? (6) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED UNCONTRADICTED AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS & SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER AS THE GRANTING OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT?

Megan Cathey v. Board of Review, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene - Case No. 12, Sept. Term 2011.

ISSUE - STATUTORY - HEALTH - IS A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED INDIVIDUAL ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED OR FUNDED BY THE DDA DURING THE TIME SHE RESIDES WITH HER FATHER IN MD IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COURT ORDER GRANTING THE FATHER JOINT LEGAL & RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY, & DIRECTING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATE HER TIME EQUALLY WITH EACH PARENT IN SUCCESSIVE TWO-WEEK INTERVALS?

Linda Freilich, et al. v. Upper Chesapeake Health Systems, Inc., et al. - Case No. 4, Sept. Term 2011.

ISSUE - HEALTH CARE - IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING IS THE PRESUMPTION OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT (HCQIA) IMMUNITY REBUTTED UPON THE SHOWING OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE REGARDING THE PHYSICIAN’S REPORTING OF SUBSTANDARD MEDICAL CARE & ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CARE IN THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM?

Daniel Genies v. State - Case No. 11, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO DISMISS THE CHARGE OF COMMON LAW INDECENT EXPOSURE, WHERE THE STATUTORY, SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME PREEMPTED THE FIELD, WITH RESPECT TO INDECENT EXPOSURE BY AN INMATE TO A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER? (2) WAS IT ERROR OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WITHOUT A HEARING?

Maryland Insurance Commissioner v. Central Acceptance Corporation, et al. - Case No. 7, Sept. Term 2011. (petition and cross-petition granted)

ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) DID AGENCY CORRECTLY DETERMINE THAT SEC. 23-304 OF INSURANCE ART. PROHIBITS (a) PRACTICE OF FRONT-LOADING THE IMPOSITION OF FINANCE CHARGES SUCH THAT BORROWERS WHOSE LOAN AGREEMENTS TERMINATE PRIOR TO END OF THE LOAN TERM PAY FINANCE CHARGES IN EXCESS OF 1.15% FOR EACH 30 DAYS, AND (b) PRACTICE OF IMPOSING FINANCE CHARGES EVEN WHERE THE INSURANCE POLICY NEVER TAKES EFFECT? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN EXPANDING ITS “COMMAND INFLUENCE” RULE THAT IF ADOPTED AS THE LAW OF MD, IT COULD BE READ TO PROHIBIT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY FROM ADJUDICATING A MATTER AFTER IT HAS ISSUED A PRE-HEARING EX PARTE ORDER IN THE MATTER? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN APPLYING ITS “COMMAND INFLUENCE” RULE TO A REGULATORY PROCEEDING WHERE ALL MATERIAL FACTS WERE UNDISPUTED WHERE THE AGENCY WAS DECIDING A PURE QUESTION OF LAW & WHERE THE AGENCY’S LEGAL RULING WAS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW? (4) IS THE MIA ORDER CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE IT IMPLEMENTS A CHANGE IN GENERALLY APPLICABLE POLICY THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED ONLY THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS? (5) IS THE MIA ORDER CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE THE CEASE & DESIST ORDER WAS ISSUED WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SECS. 2-209 & 23-207 OF THE INS. ART., THE SECTIONS CITED IN THE CEASE & DESIST ORDER AS THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THAT ORDER WAS ISSUED? (6) IS THE MIA ORDER CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE THE MIA LACKS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CEASE & DESIST ORDERS AGAINST PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANIES?

Joel Pautsch v. Maryland Real Estate Commission - Case No. 9, Sept. Term 2011.

ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE - DID THE MD REAL ESTATE COMMISSION ACT WITHIN ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REVOKED THE PETITIONER’S REAL ESTATE LICENSES BASED ON HIS FELONY CONVICTIONS FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 17-322(b)(24)(i) AND (d) OF THE BUSINESS OCCUPATIONS & PROFESSIONS ARTICLE?

Gary James Smith v. State - Case No. 10, Sept. Term 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) IS IT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE STATE TO HIJACK THE DEFENSE THEORY OF THE CASE BY REQUESTING A VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION JURY INSTRUCTION OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE DEFENDANT THAT INJECTS AN INCONSISTENT DEFENSE THEORY & THEREBY CONFUSES THE JURY & DEPRIVES THE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL? (2) IN A CASE WHERE HOMICIDE VERSUS SUICIDE IS THE CORNERSTONE ISSUE, IS IT ERROR FOR THE COURT TO ADMIT PROSECUTION EVIDENCE OF THE DECEDENT’S “NORMAL” STATE OF MIND BUT REFUSE TO ADMIT EQUALLY RELEVANT DEFENSE EVIDENCE OF THE DECEDENT’S “DEPRESSED” STATE OF MIND? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT IMPROPERLY CONFLATE ITS ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF A DISCOVERY VIOLATION WITH HARMLESS ERROR IN FINDING NON REVERSIBLE THE INTRODUCTION OF EXPERT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE?

Gerald Thomas Titus, Jr. v. State - Case No. 6, Sept. Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER GAVE A FALSE NAME TO A POLICE OFFICER DURING A TRAFFIC STOP SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT HIM OF OBSTRUCTING OR HINDERING A POLICE OFFICER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY?

 

Denied April 11, 2011

In Re: Na'imah S. - Pet. Docket No. 40