Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2012

 

Granted November 16, 2012

101 Geneva LLC v. Ethel E. Wynn, et al. - Case No. 89, September Term, 2012

Issues - Real Property - (1) Does the trial court, in a foreclosure sale involving a third-party purchase, have the authority to sua sponte undertake what are tantamount to "Exceptions to the Sale" when none are taken in a timely fashion by the Borrower nor any interested party, and thereafter, despite uncontested opposition, vacate the sale based on Maddox v. Cohn? (2) Is the trial court's issuance of a Notice of Non-Compliance pursuant to Rule 14-207.1 proper once a foreclosure sale has occurred and is Rule 14-207.1 applicable to the trial court, acting sua sponte, for post-foreclosure sale reviews performed beyond the timeframe of the Rules (i.e. Md. Rule 14-305(e)) which calls for the ratification of the sale? (3) Is the right of the trial court to act sua sponte in objecting to the "fairness or properness" of the sale barred by failing to undertake an equitable review within 60 days of the filing of the Report of Sale or the time when Exceptions were due and were not filed, or if they were filed, were denied? (4) Did the trial court err in setting forth a "policy" relative to the decision in Maddox v. Cohn, which it has improperly retroactively applied uniformly to all foreclosure sales in Montgomery County in violation of Md. Rule 1-102? (5) Does the imposition of this "policy" by the trial court in vacating the sale, in lieu of denying ratification for cause pursuant to Md. Rule 14-305(e), constitute a violation of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions, by effectively denying the (Substitute) Trustees the right of appeal?

Roguell Blue v. Prince George's County, Maryland, et al. - Case No. 87, September Term, 2012

Issue - Public Safety - In applying the "supervisory employee" exemption to the handgun control law, should the requirement that the employee be "within the confines of the business establishment" be restricted to inside the building only, as CSA ruled?

Ogden E. Coleman, II v. State of Maryland - Case No. 90, September Term, 2012

Issue - Criminal Law - Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to multiple instances during trial where the State brought into evidence that Petitioner had remained silent in the face of police questioning after Petitioner had been issued Miranda warnings?

Bernard Dixon, etc., et al. v. Ford Motor Company - Case No. 82, September Term, 2012

Issues – Torts – (1) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting under Rule 5-702 the opinion of Plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Welch, because Dr. Welch's testimony did not satisfy CSA's newly-articulated model of "probabilistic causation"? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting the opinion of Dr. Welch that Mrs. Dixon's alleged secondary exposure to asbestos through Petitioner's work with Ford brake linings was a substantial contributing factor in her mesothelioma, where that opinion was offered in response to a hypothetical question that assumed facts not in evidence? (3) If admitting this expert witness was error, was it harmless error because of the unchallenged admission of substantively identical testimony by another expert witness and because the jury concluded that the exposure in question was the only substantial contributing factor causing the illness? (4) Did the trial court err by using it's revisory power under Md. Rule 2-535(a) to hold Georgia-Pacific, LLC liable on Ford's cross-claim based on the trial court's conclusion that the jury's verdict that Georgia-Pacific was not liable for Mrs. Dixon's death, but that Ford was so liable, were irreconcilably inconsistent? (5) Did the trial court err in failing to use its revisory power to also enter judgment on Ford's cross-claim against Honeywell? (6) Whether the different treatment of individuals with identical damages under the statutory cap on non-economic damages found at C&JP §11-108 violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Articles 5, 19, 23, and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, as interpreted by this Court in Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992). (7) If Dr. Welch's causation opinions were inadmissible, should final judgment in favor of Ford be rendered, as opposed to merely a new trial? (8) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Ford's Motion for New Trial given that (a) the jury's verdict was inconsistent and against the great weight of the evidence, (b) Plaintiffs' closing arguments were highly improper, and prejudicial and (c) the verdict was shocking?

In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Jayden G. - Case No. 84, September Term, 2012

Issues - Family Law - (1) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court's order terminating parental rights, where the trial court proceeded with that hearing while the appeal challenging the CINA order changing the permanency plan from reunification to nonrelative adoption was still pending in CSA, and where ultimately the order changing the permanency plan was vacated? (2) Did the trial court err in basing its decision to terminate parental rights on Jayden's prospect of being adopted by, as well as the quality of care provided by, his current foster care providers?

Victoria Little v. Roger Schneider - Case No. 88, September Term, 2012

Issues - Health Law (Malpractice) - (1) Is evidence of a physician's board certification status admissible when the physician is a defendant in a medical malpractice action, is called by the plaintiff as an adverse witness, and testifies about the physician's specialized knowledge, skill, and expertise? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by precluding Respondent from testifying about a CAT scan which played no role in, and was not relevant to, his treatment of Petitioner?

John L. Webb, Sr., et ux. v. G. Philip Nowak, et ux. - Case No. 83, September Term, 2012

Issues - Real Property - (1) Is the principle that the interpretation of a deed is a question of law to be considered de novo in appellate review inapplicable in boundary disputes, as CSA opined? (2) May the preference for monuments over courses and distances be applied to reduce the amount of a grant, as CSA determined? (3) Was the trial court's interpretation of the deed incorrect?

Tommy Whack, Jr. v. State of Maryland - Case No. 86, September Term, 2012

Issue - Criminal Law - Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel's motion for a mistrial after the State, in a rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence?

David C. Winters v. State of Maryland - Case No. 85, September Term, 2012

Issue - Criminal Law - Where a criminal defendant enters pleas of not guilty and not criminally responsible, is a waiver of jury trial rendered invalid where the judge during the waiver colloquy affirmatively misadvises the accused concerning the defense of not criminally responsible?

 

Denied November 19, 2012

Armstead, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 360
Battle, Danny v. State - Pet. Docket No. 331
Boswell, Calvin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 352
Butler v. Maryland State Police - Pet. Docket No. 391
Carter, Malik v. State - Pet. Docket No. 400
Carter, Reginald v. State - Pet. Docket No. 361
Chamberlain, Christopher Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 370
Debra v. Enterprise Office Park, Inc., et al. - Pet. Docket No. 367
Dick, James William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 237
Dickerson, Devin S. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 408
Drummond v. Davis - Pet. Docket No. 348
Epps, David Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 371
Feaster, Princeton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 324
Forrester v. 7-Eleven, Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 386
Gallop, Donald v. State - Pet. Docket No. 355
Goldberg, Seth Martin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 264
Guilfoil, David Wayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 412
Hale, Jabraiyl Jaquan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 350
Harrington v. Kaiser Foundation Plan Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.- Pet. Docket No. 356
Hernandez, Gerardo v. State - Pet. Docket No. 258
In the Matter of Roda E. Lema for the Appointment of a Guardian - Pet. Docket No. 366
Jacobs v. Howard County Housing Commission - Pet. Docket No. 252
Johnson, Earl D., Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 403
Jones, Stephen Barry, Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 383
Joseph, Dennot v. State - Pet. Docket No. 346
Keiser, James Eugene, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 382
Kelly, Anthony Quintin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 405
Lee, Vernon Lamar v. State - Pet. Docket No. 410
Mbongo v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. - Pet. Docket No. 384
Micheel, Paul v. State - Pet. Docket No. 354
Moore v. Imagine Capital, Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 409
Moore, Damarqus Dionte v. State - Pet. Docket No. 349
Murray, Kevin L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 418
Myer v. Tomanek - Pet. Docket No. 380
Nivens, Stephen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 343
Patterson, Vaughn Dwayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 390
Pescrillo, Gary W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 419
Potts, Nicholas Thomas, III v. State - Pet. Docket No. 385
Powell v. Fidelity Real Estate Corp. - Pet. Docket No. 332
Prue, Andre Lynn v. State - Pet. Docket No. 411
Ramsey, Datwan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 376
Ranson, Steven v. State - Pet. Docket No. 387
Rivers, Ernest v. State - Pet. Docket No. 347
Roberts, Joseph Granville v. State - Pet. Docket No. 357
Rosendale v. Queen Anne's Co. Office of Child Support - Pet. Docket No. 406
Rush, Steven Daniel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 393
Sarpong v. Howard University - Pet. Docket No. 381
Schwartz v. Isaac - Pet. Docket No. 392
Shiflett, Jeffrey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 402
Solomons Two, LLC, et al. v. Sanders - Pet. Docket No. 378
Southall, Romonda v. State - Pet. Docket No. 379
Spence, Dwayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 375
Stanley, Joseph Z. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 364
State v. Hajireen, Tuan Pingeran - Pet. Docket No. 89
Stevenson, Deshawn Maurice v. State - Pet. Docket No. 115
Sudduth v. Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene - Pet. Docket No. 362
Tribble v. Brooks - Pet. Docket No. 481
Walker, Dwayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 407
Warren, Citrine H. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 365
Williams, Darrell C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 363
Yates, Jacqueline Tate v. State - Pet. Docket No. 263



Granted November 20, 2012

Robert Mitchell Acker v. State of Maryland - Case No. 91, September Term, 2012