Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2010

 

Granted July 12, 2011

Shawn Dewayne Davis, Sr. v. State - Case No. 49, September Term 2011.

 

Denied July 11, 2011

Afzal v. Wantz - Pet. Docket No. 73
Anderson, Mark Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 132
Blythe, Victor J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 117
Broadway, Roslyn v. State - Pet. Docket No. 109
Bowman v. Parole Commission - Pet. Docket No. 102
Brown v. McShea - Pet. Docket No. 65
Case v. Klein - Pet. Docket No. 80
Case v. Westcott - Pet. Docket No. 123
Centeno v. Portney - Pet. Docket No. 111
Cheatham v. Nelson - Pet. Docket No. 112
Davis, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 1
Dorsey v. Up at Night - Pet. Docket No. 131
Dowler v. GEICO - Pet. Docket No. 82
Embers v. Brown - Pet. Docket No. 96
Farewell, Ross Franklin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 594* (motion for reconsideration)
Fletcher v. Citizens - Pet. Docket No. 126
Griffin, John J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 99
Griffin, Susan Joan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 98
Hargrave v. Cade - Pet. Docket No. 538*
Holbrook, Abraham P. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 581* (motion for reconsideration)
Hutton, Randall Fergus v. State - Pet. Docket No. 101
Hill v. Horning - Pet. Docket No. 87
In Re: Adoption of Yahshonna M. - Pet. Docket No. 649*
Lednum, Raymond D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 119
Martinson, Catherine v. State - Pet. Docket No. 55
Matthews, Kirk Byron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 97
Morgan v. Roxbury Correctional Institute - Pet. Docket No. 110
Moss, Duran Monroe v. State - Pet. Docket No. 47
Pride, Melvin E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 94
Rollins v. Frederick - Pet. Docket No. 105
Smith, Nathaniel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 125
Smith, Robyn v. State - Pet. Docket No. 115
Strickland v. RRR - Pet. Docket No. 104
Taylor, Telvon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 625* (motion for reconsideration)
Tolu v. Gbenoba - Pet. Docket No. 116
Vogel v. Anne Arundel County - Pet. Docket No. 136
White, Dwayne D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 89
Wolins v. Cole - Pet. Docket No. 121

 

Granted July 8, 2011

Muhammad H. Abdul-Maleek v. State - Case No. 46, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT VIOLATED SEC. 12-702(c) OF THE MD. COURTS & JUD. PROCEED. ART. WHEN IT INCREASED THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE EXERCISED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL & RECEIVE A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE U. S. CONST. & ART. 24 OF THE MD. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AS SET FORTH IN NORTH CAROLINA V. PEARCE, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) & COLTEN V. KENNEDY, 407 U.S. 104, 112 (1953)?

Charles Atkins v. State - Case No. 40, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO PROPOUND THE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION ON IMPERFECT SELF-DEFENSE?

Michael S. Barclay, et ux. v. Lena Briscoe, et al. Lena Briscoe, Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Eugene Richardson v. Ports Americam Inc., et al. - Petition and Cross-Petition both granted. Case No. 41, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - (1) WHETHER EMPLOYERS HAVE A DUTY TO THE PUBLIC WHEN THE EMPLOYEE’S EXTENDED WORK SCHEDULE CAUSED SLEEP DEPRIVATION, RESULTING IN THE EMPLOYEE FALLING ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OF HIS/HER VEHICLE DURING HIS/HER COMMUTE HOME, & CAUSING A FORESEEABLE INJURY TO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC? (2) WHETHER THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION TO THE COMING & GOING RULE IN TORT SHOULD APPLY SO AS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AGAINST AN EMPLOYER IN FAVOR OF A THIRD PARTY WHEN THE EMPLOYER IS AWARE OR SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SLEEP DEPRIVATION CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYEE’S EXTENDED WORK SCHEDULE & THAT SLEEP DEPRIVATION CONTINUES TO AFFECT THE EMPLOYEE DURING HIS COMMUTE HOME, FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE EXTENDED WORK SCHEDULE? (3) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST? (4) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DICTA IN ITS OPINION SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR A STATE COURT TO EXPAND VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY & DURING THE COMMUTE HOME BY ITS FATIGUED EMPLOYEE IN CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYER SCHEDULED THE EMPLOYEE TO WORK LONGER HOURS THAN USUAL? (5) GIVEN PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT THAT PORTS AMERICA ALLEGEDLY ALLOWED ITS EMPLOYEES TO WORK IN EXCESS OF A REASONABLE NUMBER OF HOURS PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF A NATIONAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) COVERING THOSE EMPLOYEES TO THE EXTENT THAT PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS ARE INTRINSICALLY BOUND UP IN THE TERMS OF THE CBA, ARE THY EXCLUSIVELY MATTERS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION SUCH THAT THE APPLICATION OF STATE LAW IS PREEMPTED IN THIS CASE BY FEDERAL LABOR LAWS?

Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, Verizon Maryland, Inc. - Case No. 39, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) IS THE COMMISSION’S ORDER 83137 SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD? (2) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IT ORDERS VERIZON TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ALTERNATIVE FORM OF REGULAR (AFOR) THAT DOES NOT PROTECT CONSUMERS BY ENSURING THE QUALITY, AVAILABILITY & RELIABILITY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES THROUGH THE STATE OF MARYLAND? (3) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IN ORDERING VERIZON TO IMPLEMENT A NEW AFOR THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING THAT THE NEW AFOR PROTECTS CONSUMERS BY PRODUCING AFFORDABLE & REASONABLY PRICED BASIC LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE? (4) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IT ORDERS VERIZON TO IMPLEMENT A NEW AFOR THAT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? (5) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IT ESTABLISHES A NEW BALANCING OF THE INTEREST TEST BY ITS APPROVAL OF THE AFOR?

Tonto Corbin v. State - Case No. 48, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DOES A DWI PROBATIONER WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY DECLINED POLICE REQUESTS TO SEIZE & TEST HIS DNA, VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER HIS BREATH FOR DNA TESTING WHERE STATE OFFICERS SEIZE HIS DNA ON THE FALSE PRETENSE OF SEIZING & TESTING ONLY HIS BLOOD ALCOHOL? (2) WAS THE EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S CRIMINAL AGENCY LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS ANY STRONGER THAN EVIDENCE IMPLICATING TWO OR THREE OTHER SUSPECTS?

Markino Little v. State - Case No. 50, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - IN A PROSECUTION FOR POSSESSION OF BURGLAR’S TOOLS, DOES THE LAW REQUIRE THAT THE ALLEGED BURGLAR’S TOOL FACILITATE THE ACTUAL BREAKING & ENTERING OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AND THEREFORE GLOVES & FLASHLIGHT ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE?

Amy Mulligan v. William Corbett - Case No. 43, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - SHOULD THE PATERNITY OF A CHILD CONCEIVED DURING A MARRIAGE BUT BORN AFTER DIVORCE BE DETERMINED UNDER THE ESTATES & TRUSTS ART. OR THE FAMILY LAW ART.?

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Dana Eric Carpenter - Case No. 44, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - IS A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY THAT A SUBJECT HAD BEEN DRIVING A VEHICLE INVOLVED IN A COLLISION BASED ON THE OFFICER’S POST-CRASH INVESTIGATION THAT INCLUDED WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT THE DETAINED SUSPECT HAD BEEN “TRAVELING AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED” & “HAD STRUCK THE CAR,” SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE GROUNDS TO REQUEST AN ALCOHOL CONTENT TEST UNDER SEC. 16-205.1(b)(2) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE?

Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Anand M. Dhanda - Case No. 47, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) WHERE A CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PARTIES SUBMIT TO NON-BINDING ARBITRATION & STATES THAT THE PARTIES MAY “GO TO COURT IF NOT SATISFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE MD UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT,” DOES THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUE AT THE TIME OF THE BREACH OR AT THE TIME OF THE NON-BINDING ARBITRATION? (2) WHEN THE PARTIES AGREE NOT TO “GO TO COURT” UNTIL AFTER A NON-BINDING ARBITRATION DOES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGIN TO RUN AT THE TIME OF THE BREACH OR AT THE TIME A PARTY CAN “GO TO COURT?”

University of Maryland Medical System Corporation v. Giuseppina Muti, Personal Representative of the Estate of Elliott Muti, et al. - (Petition and Cross-Petition both granted). Case No. 42, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - TORT LAW - WHETHER THE FAILURE TO NAME ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES AS EITHER PLAINTIFFS OR USE PLAINTIFFS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE DECEDENT’S DEATH REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND?

Ricky Shamar Washington v. State - Case No. 45, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION & ERROR TO REFUSE TO ASK WHETHER ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BELIEVE A WITNESS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE WITNESS HAVING SERVED IN THE MILITARY OR BEING EMPLOYED BY THE MILITARY?