IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Thursday, February 2, 2012:
Misc. 8 In the Matter of the Application of R.C.S.
For Admission to the Bar of Maryland
AG 10 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Darlene H. Smith
Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Darlene H. Smith
No. 41 Michael S. Barclay, et ux. v.
Lena Briscoe, et al., Lena Briscoe, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Christopher Eugene
Richardson v. Ports America Baltimore, Inc., et al.
v. Ports of America Baltimore, Inc., et al.
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 Collection Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covering those employees to the extent that petitioners' claims are intrinsically bound up in the terms of the CBA, are they exclusively matters for federal jurisdiction such that the application of state law is preempted in this case by federal labor laws?
Attorney for appellants: Henry L. Belsky
Attorneys for appellees: Teresa M. Kelly and Joanne Zawitoski
No. 89 Chaz Kinichi Bazzle v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) Did the trial court properly decline petitioner’s request to instruct the jury on the theory of voluntary intoxication? (2) In a prosecution in which the identity of the perpetrator is at issue is it appropriate to admit into evidence the level of certainty of the complaining witness?
Attorney for appellant: Michael R. Braudes
Attorney for appellee: Jessica V. Carter
No. 87 Robert S. Cochran, Jr., et al. v.
Griffith Energy Services, Inc., et al.
Issue - Are injured individuals who are not owners & do not have the power to test the property barred by a prior judgment based upon the ownership interest such that a party who commits fraud during litigation continues to escape liability even when that fraud inflicted actual harm on the victims independent of the litigation?
Attorney for appellants: Edward J. Brown
Attorney for appellees: William Alden McDaniel, Jr.
Friday, February 3, 2012:
No. 82 Washington Home Remodelers, Inc. v.
State of Maryland, Office of the Attorney General,
Consumer Protection Division
Issues - Commercial Law - (1) Does the Consumer Protection Division have investigative & enforcement authority over the access & use of consumer credit reports in Md. Code Ann. State gov. Sec. 14-1201, et. seq. when that authority is specifically vested with the Commissioner of Financial Regulation of the Depart. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation? (2) Does the Consumer Protection Division have investigative & enforcement authority over the MD home improvement law, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. Sec. 8-101, et. seq. when that authority is specifically vested with the MD Home Improvement Commission?
Attorney for appellant: Levi S. Zaslow
Attorney for appellee: Philip D. Ziperman
AG 9 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Adrian Van Nelson, II
Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Adrian Van Nelson, II
No. 85 HNS Development, LLC v.
People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, et al.
Issues - (1) Did the County Board of Appeals impermissibly create a new requirement of master plan compliance in addition to that contained in the stated development regulations? (2) Did the County Board of Appeals impermissibly create upon a finding of master plan conflict a means of taking without compensation? (3) Is the statement on a development plan that a County agency would oppose further development of a parcel & lot the same as an exaction or condition of development as discussed in City of Annapolis v. Waterman?
Attorney for appellant: John S. Gontrum
Attorney for appellees: Peter Max Zimmerman and J. Carroll Holzer
No. 83 Peter Paul Toland, Jr. v. Akiko Futagi
Issues - Constitutional Law - (1) Whether the trial court erred & violated petitioner’s due process rights & fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody & control of his daughter in violation of the U.S. Constitution & the MD Declaration of Rights? (2) Whether the trial court erred & misapplied the MD’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act when it granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss?
Attorneys for appellant: Stephen J. Cullen and Kelly A. Powers
Attorney for appellee: Judy Dugger
Monday, February 6, 2012:
AG 1 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Barry S. Brown
Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Barry S. Brown
AG 90 (2009 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Harvey Malcolm Nusbaum
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew A. S. Esworthy
No. 88 McKenzie A. Nicolas v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) Does a jury note with no date or time stamp found in the appellate record establish that the trial court received the jury communication at issue in order to trigger the requirements of Md. Rule 4-326(d)? (2) Did the lower court err in holding that petitioner’s convictions for second degree assault do not merge into his conviction for resisting arrest for sentencing purposes where the record is ambiguous as to whether the jury convicted petitioner of second degree assault based on acts different than those underlying his conviction for resisting arrest?
Attorney for appellant: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for appellee: Ryan R. Dietrich
Tuesday, February 7, 2012:
No. 67 Maryland Board of Public Works, et al. v.
K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC
Issues - Environmental - (1) Did the Board of Public Works act constitutionally & within its legal boundaries when it denied a license for appellee to place structures over, on, in and under state-owned tidal wetlands? (2) Is the Board of Public Works vested with discretionary authority over the issuance of licenses for dredging or filling State wetlands?
Attorneys for appellants: Adam D. Snyder and C. Daniel Saunders
Attorney for appellee: John H. Zink
AG 70 (2010 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Louis Peter Tanko, Jr.
Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Louis Peter Tanko, Jr.
No. 71 Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a
GAF Materials Corporation v. Board of Education of Baltimore County
Issue - Education - Is the "goods" and "commodities" exception to public bidding requirements set forth in Md. Code Ann., Educ. Sec. 5-112 applicable to the procurement of roofing replacement construction projects where the cost is more than $25,000?
Attorneys for appellant: David L. Cole, Jr. and Eric Radz
Attorney for appellee: Edmund J. O'Meally
No. 90 Vanessa Fisher v. Eastern Correctional Institution
Issue - Personnel & Pensions - Whether the lower court correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the grounds that, by allowing the secretary of her agency additional time to meet his statutory responsibly to decide her appeal, she inadvertently rendered her appeal untimely?
Attorney for appellant: Robin R. Cockey
Attorney for appellee: Lisa O'Mara Arnquist
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After February 7, 2012 the Court will recess until
March 1, 2012.
BESSIE M. DECKER