Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2010

 

Denied June 20, 2011

Adventist Rehabilitation v. Gordon - Pet. Docket No. 650*
Basik v. Melcher - Pet. Docket No. 49
Black v. Tendras - Pet. Docket No. 42
Bowers v. Bowers - Pet. Docket No. 69
Brendsel v. Aspen Institute - Pet. Docket No. 39
Burke v. Burke - Pet. Docket No. 51
Case v. Unisys - Pet. Docket No. 57
Clark, Alan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 35
Cornblatt v. Meyers - Pet. Docket No. 54
Davenport, William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 64
Deyesu v. Deyesu - Pet. Docket No. 586* (motion for reconsideration)
Haddock v. Haddock - Pet. Docket No. 56
Halliday v. Coleman Cadillac - Pet. Docket No. 78
Hannan v. Hannan - Pet. Docket No. 37
Holmes, Christian Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 547*
Inner Harbor Insurance v. McCollum - Pet. Docket No. 34
Jackson v. Adventist Health - Pet. Docket No. 66
Johnson, Lamont v. State - Pet. Docket No. 77
Jones v. Shaw - Pet. Docket No. 53
Jones, William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 75
Kearney, Eric Aurelius v. State - Pet. Docket No. 63
Lewis, Brian Scott v. State - Pet. Docket No. 74
McDermott v. Discover - Pet. Docket No. 558* (motion for reconsideration)
McLean v. State Police - Pet. Docket No. 71
Miller v. Wagonheim - Pet. Docket No. 79
Nery, Troy Vincent v. State - Pet. Docket No. 81
Noonan v. Thornhill - Pet. Docket No. 648*
Phillips, James E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 68
Renfro v. C&ash Holdings - Pet. Docket No. 48
Reyes, Francisco A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 59
Pichardo, Jose Luiz Cruz v. State - Pet. Docket No. 59
Romero v. NVR - Pet. Docket No. 60
Scott v. Williams - Pet. Docket No. 431*
Sharp, Casey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 18
Showell, Richard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 84
Smith v. Turner - Pet. Docket No. 50
Thompson, Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 612* (motion for reconsideration)
Thompson, Terrell Lamont v. State - Pet. Docket No. 44
Walker v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 106
Wright v. Chaney - Pet. Docket No. 62

 

Granted June 17, 2011

Bethesda Title & Escrow LLC v. Robert Gochnour - Case No. 31, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER RAISED THE SAME LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE BOTH THE IN BANC PANEL & THE LOWER COURT? (2) MAY A PARTY SEEK REVIEW FROM BOTH AN IN BANC PANEL AS WELL AS BY THE LOWER COURT WHERE THE ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED BY THE APPELLATE BODIES ARE DIFFERENT & DISTINCT & THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER FROM EACH APPELLATE BODY IS ALSO DIFFERENT & DISTINCT?

John Burson, et al v. David Simard - Case No. 35, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - STATUTORY LAW - (1) WAS THE LOWER COURT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT MD RULE 14-305(g) CONTEMPLATES THAT WHEN A FORECLOSURE PURCHASER DEFAULTS THE DEFAULTING PURCHASER’S “RISK & EXPENSE” ATTACHES ONLY TO THE ONE RESALE RESULTING FROM HIS OR HER DEFAULT? (2) WAS THE LOWER COURT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT A DEFAULTING PURCHASER IS ONLY LIABLE FOR THE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE SALE & THE FIRST RESALE BECAUSE HE DID NOT CAUSE THE SECOND DEFAULTING PURCHASE TO BREACH?

Joanna Davis v. Michael A. Petito, Jr. - Case No. 30, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - IN DETERMINING AN AWARD OF COSTS & ATTORNEY’S FEES IN A CUSTODY CASE, FAM. LAW. ART. SEC. 12-103(b)(2) OF THE MD CODE REQUIRING THE COURTS TO CONSIDER INTER ALIA THE FINANCIAL STATUS & NEEDS OF EACH PARTY, WAS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOWER COURT TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE MOTHER WAS REPRESENTED PRO BONO & TO DISREGARD HER DAY-TO-DAY FINANCIAL NEEDS PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO CARING FOR THE CHILD?

Paul B. DeWolfe, in his official capacity as Public Defender for the State of Maryland, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al. - Case No. 34, September Term 2011. (Petition and Cross-Petition granted).

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT INITIAL BAIL HEARINGS: (a) BEFORE DISTRICT COURT COMMISSIONERS UNDER MD’S PUBLIC DEFENDER ACT? (b) UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT & ART. 21 OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? (c) UNDER MD OR FEDERAL GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS? (d) WHEN COMMISSIONERS IMPOSE BAIL”PRESET” BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN ABSENTIA? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING THE CLASS DECLARATORY RELIEF IN ACCORD WITH ITS FINDINGS THAT DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATING THE CLASS’S STATUTORY & CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? (3) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ISSUING THE DECLARATION WITHOUT IN ANY WAY ADDRESSING REMEDY & HOW THIS UNDISPUTED FUNDING SHORTFALL MIGHT BE PRACTICABLY ADDRESSED?

Richard S. Dinnis, et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. - Case No. 25, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - COMMON LAW - (1) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 3-306? (2) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD COMMON LAW? (3) DOES THE 12-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO SMLL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ASSIGNEES OF SECOND MORTGAGE? (4) DOES AN ASSIGNEE’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A BORROWER WITH COPY OF THE SECOND MORTGAGE LOAN FILE GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER MD LAW? (5) IS THE SMLL VIOLATED WHEN A LENDER FAILS TO PROVIDE A BORROWER THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 12-407.1?

Kimberly Jones v. State of Maryland, et al. - Case No. 37, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - TORTS - (1) IS EVIDENCE THAT POLICE OFFICERS COMMITTED INTENTIONAL TORTS & CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS COUPLED WITH TESTIMONY BY THE OFFICERS THAT THEIR ACTIONS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TRAINING & EVIDENCE THAT THE OFFICERS ENTERED A CITIZEN’S HOME WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION SUFFICIENT TO PROVE A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENT TRAINING? (2) IS EXPERT TESTIMONY NECESSARY FOR A PLAINTIFF TO MEET HER BURDEN OF PROOF ON A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENT TRAINING OR SUPERVISION OF POLICE OFFICERS? (3) DOES THE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE SHIELD THE STATE FROM A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE WHEN ITS POLICE OFFICERS COMMIT INTENTIONAL TORTS AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS?

Wanda T. King v. Comptroller of the Treasury - Case No. 32, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - TAX LAW - DID THE MD GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ENACTING TG 13-1104(c)(2)(i) INTEND FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO BEGIN TO RUN ON MD REFUND CLAIMS ON THE DATE A TAXPAYER’S FEDERAL INCOME TAX LIABILITY IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RATHER THAN THE DATE THAT THE IRS ISSUES A REPORT PROPOSING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TAXPAYER’S LIABILITY?

John W. Kinsey, Jr., et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. - Case No. 26, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - COMMON LAW - (1) DOES SEC. 12-405 OF THE SMLL LIMIT LENDER COMPENSATION TO ONLY A SINGLE LOAN ORIGINATION FEE OR MAY A LENDER COLLECT ANY NUMBER OF SEPARATELY LABELED CLOSING FEES, COSTS & CHARGES AS LONG AS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES, COSTS & CHARGES, LOAN ORIGINATION & FINDER’S FEES ARE LESS THAN 10% OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE LOAN? (2) IS THE SMLL VIOLATED WHEN A LENDER FAILS TO PROVIDE A BORROWER THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY MD CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 12-407.1? (3) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW SEC. 3-306? (4) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD COMMON LAW? (5) DOES THE 12-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO SMLL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ASSIGNEES OF SECOND MORTGAGES?

Joseph Mobuary v. State - Case No. 27, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REINSTATE HIS DE NOVO APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURT CONVICTIONS, WHERE: (a) THE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEALS BASED MERELY ON COUNSEL’S ASSERTION THAT A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SAID PETITIONER REFUSED TO BE TRANSPORTED TO COURT FROM THE DETENTION CENTER? (b) DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED & INFORMED THE COURT THAT PETITIONER DENIED REFUSING TO COME TO COURT & WANTED TO PROCEED WITH HIS APPEALS? (c) THE COURT APPLIED THE WRONG LEGAL STANDARD IN RULING ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REINSTATE HIS APPEALS?

Montgomery Preservation, Inc., et al. v. Montgomery County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al. - Case No. 36, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - ZONING - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO UNDERTAKE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD’S DECISION TO DETERMINE IF THE BOARD’S ACTION WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS OR OTHERWISE DEFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT PLANNING BOARD ACTION IN THIS CASE WAS A “RECOMMENDATION” RATHER THAN AN APPEALABLE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S DECISION? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITIONERS PROPER RECOURSE IN THIS CASE WAS TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL?

Sam Nichols, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse W. Suiters v. Virginia Lee Suiters - Case No. 33, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - ESTATES & TRUSTS - (1) DID LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS INTERPRETATION & APPLICATION OF SEC. 4-105 OF THE ESTATES & TRUSTS ART. WHEN IT REFUSED TO APPLY THE STATUTE TO REVOKE BENEFITS TO THE DIVORCED SPOUSE UNDER THE WILL WHICH WAS EXECUTED PRIOR TO THE DIVORCE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND THAT AN EXCEPTION TO SEC. 4-105 APPLIED WHERE THE TRIAL COURT AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL CONCLUDED THAT THE EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE DECEDENT INTENDED TO BENEFIT RESPONDENT WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE DECEDENT’S INTENT AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE & WHERE THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER RESPONDENT WOULD BENEFIT UNDER THE WILL IF THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT DIVORCE? (4) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN MAKING FACTUAL FINDINGS THAT WERE NOT MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT & RELYING UPON EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AT THE DE NOVO HEARING?

Michael T. Polek, et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al. - Case No. 24, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - COMMON LAW - (1) DOES SEC. 12-405 OF THE MD SECONDARY MORTGAGE LOAN LAW (SMLL) LIMIT LENDER COMPENSATION TO ONLY A SINGLE LOAN ORIGINATION FEE OR MAY A LENDER COLLECT ANY NUMBER OF SEPARATELY LABELED CLOSING FEES, COSTS & CHARGES AS LONG AS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH FEES, COSTS & CHARGES, LOAN ORIGINATION & FINDER’S FEES ARE LESS THAN 10% OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE LOAN? (2) IS THE SMLL VIOLATED WHEN A LENDER FAILS TO PROVIDE A BORROWER THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 12-407.1? (3) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 3-306 WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PERSON TAKING AN INSTRUMENT, OTHER THAN A PERSON HAVING THE RIGHTS OF A HOLDER-IN–DUE-COURSE IS SUBJECT TO A CLAIM OF A POSSESSORY OR PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE INSTRUMENT OR ITS PROCEEDS? (4) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD COMMON LAW? (5) DOES THE 12-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO SMLL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ASSIGNEES OF SECOND MORTGAGES?

Pro-Football, Inc. t/a Washington Redskins, et al. v. Thomas J. Tupa, Jr. - Case No. 29, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - (1) WHETHER MD PUBLIC POLICY INVALIDATES AN OTHERWISE VALID FORUM-SELECTION PROVISION IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT THAT SPECIFIES THE VA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AS THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES RELATED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS? (2) WHETHER A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER WHO ONLY PLAYS APPROXIMATELY 10 GAMES EACH YEAR IN MD FOR A TEAM BASED IN VA CAN PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED A “COVERED EMPLOYEE” UNDER THE ACT? (3) WHETHER AN INJURY THAT ARISES FROM PARTICIPATION IN A PROFESSIONAL SPORTING EVENT CONSTITUTES AN “ACCIDENTAL INJURY” UNDER THE ACT?

Donald Spangler, et al. v. Peggy McQuitty and Gary McQuitty, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Dylan McQuitty - Case No. 23, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - STATUTORY LAW - (1) WHETHER A LITIGANT IS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE A TRIAL COURT DENIES A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL FOLLOWING THIS COURT’S SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE OF THE COMMON LAW OF INFORMED CONSENT? (2) WHETHER A TRIAL COURT ABUSES ITS DISCRETION BY ENTERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED PLAINTIFF WHERE AN AWARD FOR FUTURE MEDICAL CARE IS INCLUDED AS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF DAMAGES IN THE JUDGMENT ENTRY? (3) WHETHER A SETTLING DEFENDANT MAY INCREASE THE LIABILITY OF A NON-SETTLING DEFENDANT BY DESIGNATING HIMSELF A NON-JOINT TORTFEASOR? (4) WHETHER A LITIGANT CAN ALTER OR CHANGE MD’S LAW BY CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT & PRECLUDE A SETTLING TORTFEASOR FROM BEING CLASSIFIED AS A “JOINT TORTFEASOR” UNDER THE UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT TORT-FEASORS ACT TO THE DETRIMENT OF A NON-SETTLING TORTFEASOR WHO WAS NOTA PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT? (5) WHETHER POST JUDGMENT INTEREST SHOULD RUN FROM THE LAST DATE FINAL JUDGMENT IS ENTERED, WHERE THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WAS VACATED DUE TO THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF THE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT?

Calvin Montgomery Waker v. State - Case No. 28, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHERE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REDUCES THE PENALTY FOR AN OFFENSE AFTER A DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE BUT BEFORE HE IS TRIED & SENTENCED & WHERE THE ACT IS SILENT AS TO ITS APPLICATION IN SUCH A SITUATION, IS THE DEFENDANT SUBJECT TO THE HARSHER PENALTY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR THE REDUCED PENALTY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL & SENTENCING?
(2) DID PETITIONER FAIL TO PRESERVE HIS APPELLATE CLAIM REGARDING HIS CONVICTION & SENTENCE FOR FELONY THEFT WHERE PETITIONER DID NOT STATE A CLAIM OF SENTENCE ILLEGALITY?