IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
SCHEDULE
Wednesday, June 6, 2012:
Bar Admissions
Misc. 27 In the Matter of the Application of Henry Roland Barnes for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Applicant: Susan S. Silber
AG 71 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harry Tun
Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Ross D. Hecht
No. 124 Matthew C. Baker, et al. v. Montgomery County Maryland, et al.
Issues - Transportation Law -- (1) Did CSA err in ruling that any challenge by recipients of speed camera citations must be raised during the District Court trial? (2) Did CSA err in ruling that recipient of a speed camera citation waives all challenges to that citation by paying the fine? (3) Did CSA err in ruling that the amendment, while this case was in litigation, of all government contracts with prime contractor to state that contractor “does not operate” the speed monitoring renders the term “operator” inapplicable to contractor?
Attorneys for Appellant: Stephen H. Ring and Timothy P. Leahy
Attorneys for Appellee: Kevin Karpinski and Charles L. Frederick
No. 126 George J. Carroll v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) Is a defendant entitled, upon request, to an instruction expressly informing the jury that the State has the burden of proving each element of every charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt? (2) When neither the required evidence test nor the rule of lenity apply, should convictions for the crimes of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and attempted armed robbery be merged as a matter of fundamental fairness?
Attorney for Appellant: Brian C. Rabbitt
Attorney for Appellee: Sarah Page Pritzlaff
No. 129 USA Cartage Leasing, LLC v. Todd Baer, et al.
Issues - Real Property Law - (1) Under the law of express easements, whether the trial court erred by improperly applying “way by necessity” concepts to locate the purported right-of-way easement on the ground when such easement was not described in the granting deed, was never agreed upon, and had never physically existed on the ground? (2) Whether under the law of express easements, lack of description or actual location render a purported right-of-way easement “wholly inoperative” because it is impossible to locate?
Attorney for Appellant: G. Randall Whittenberger
Attorney for Appellee: James W. Stone
Thursday, June 7, 2012:
(On Thursday, June 7 oral arguments will begin at 9:00 a.m.)
AG 13 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tiffany T. Alston
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Tiffany T. Alston
No. 115 CR-RSC Tower I, LLC, Second CR-RSC Tower I, LLC, CR-RSC Tower II, LLC and Second CR-RSC Tower II, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC and RSC Tower II, LLC
Issues - Contract Law - (1) Under what circumstances should a Court permit evidence of post-breach market conditions affecting a claim for lost profits? (2) Is a defendant entitled to present evidence that the plaintiff would never have recouped its investment in a business venture where a plaintiff seeks reliance damages as an alternative to proving lost profits? (3) Does a defendant, in denying a plaintiff’s charge of bad faith, waive the attorney-clients privilege as to communications relevant to the subject matter of the claim of bad faith? (4) May a court award the related attorneys’ fees on a joint & several basis where two defendants are not jointly and severally liable on separate contracts? (5) Under what circumstances can a plaintiff recover lost profits that, if the transaction proceeded as planned, would have belonged to a non-party entity? (6) May the petitioners be found jointly & severally liable for their joint effort to derail an integrated real estate development project on adjoining parcels of land where they breached identical covenants in two related ground leases & the jury found that each lessee breached covenants running with the land to implement a uniform plan of development for each lessee’s benefit?
Attorney for Appellant: Andrew Jay Graham
Attorney for Appellee: Brian L. Schwalb
No. 121 Dexter Ingram v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - Did the lower court err by relying on law governing closing argument to hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Petitioner’s trial counsel to compare the reasonable doubt standard with other legal standards that were not generated by the evidence or in any way relevant to the issues before the jury?
Attorneys for Appellant: Andrew V. Jezic and David H. Moyse
Attorneys for Appellee: Todd W. Hesel
Monday, June 11, 2012:
No. 118 Mercy Medical Center, et al. v. Emerson R. Julian, Jr., et al.
Issues - Medical Malpractice - (1) Did the lower court err when it interpreted the MD Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors Act (UCATA) to require a stipulation of joint tort-feasor status in order to comply with Sec. 3-1405 & relieve a settling tort-feasor from liability to pay contribution? (2) Did the lower court err when it concluded that parties released by a pro rata release could be sued in a later action for contribution based on Swigert v. Welk, 213 Md. 613, 133 A.2d 428 (1957)? (3) If a joint tort-feasor may pursue a post-judgment action for contribution against a party released by a “Swigert” pro rata release, may he recover money damages from the “Swigert” defendant or is the remedy limited to a reduction of the judgment?
Attorney for Appellant: Kelly Hughes Iverson
Attorney for Appellee: James L. Shea
No. 119 Wycinna L. Spence, et vir. v. Emerson R. Julian, Jr., et al.
Issues - Medical Malpractice - (1) Did the lower court err in holding that Sec. 3-1405 of the MD Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors Act (UCATA) does not bar respondents’ right to obtain contribution from Mercy? (2) Did the lower court err in determining that respondents did not waive their right to claim the benefit of a release & their right to contribution by failing to raise an affirmative defense of release & failing to prove negligence by Mercy in the medical malpractice action?
Attorney for Appellant: Rignal W. Baldwin
Attorney for Appellee: James L. Shea
AG 32 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Donya Tarraine Zimmerman
Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk
Attorney for Respondent: John O. Iweanoge, Jr.
No. 127 Kenneth Thomas v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - Under Maryland Rules 5-802.1(b) and 5-616(c), did CSA correctly affirm trial court’s admission of a witness’s prior consistent statements when it held that if a witness had multiple motives to fabricate, the prior consistent statement was admissible so long as it predated at least one of those motives?
Attorney for Appellant: Ben Miller
Attorney for Appellant: James E. Williams
Tuesday, June 12, 2012:
No. 131 John Doe, et al. v. Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.
Issue - Constitutional Law - Is the Maryland DREAM Act, which directly mandates & requires an increase in future appropriations for community colleges & which regulates the amount of tuition revenue received by the University System of Maryland, a law “making any appropriation for maintaining the State Government” within the meaning of Art. XVI, sec. 2, of the MD Constitution & thereby exempt from referendum?
Attorneys for Appellant: Joseph E. Sandler and Brett Marston
Attorneys for Appellee: Matthew Fader and Paul Orfanedes
AG 16 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Wayne Walker-Turner
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: J. Wyndal Gordon
No. 128 Heavenly Days Crematorium, LLC v. Harris, Smariga and Associates, Inc.
Issues - Torts - (1) Whether CSA erred in applying Sections 3-2C-01 and 3-2C-02 of the Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. of the MD Code to a non-licensed professional? (2) Whether CSA violated canons of statutory construction by interpreting these sections in a way that ignores critical statutory language and is contrary to the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statute? (3) Whether CSA erred by interpreting these sections to require petitioner to file a certificate of qualified expert within ninety days of filing its complaint against respondent, where the claim was based solely on the negligent acts and omission of a non-licensed employee? (4) Whether CSA erred in finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that petitioner did not show good cause to grant its request for waiver or modification of requirement to file a certificate of qualified expert within ninety days of filing its complaint?
Attorney for Appellant: Dale A. Cooter
Attorney for Appellee: James F. Lee, Jr.
No. 130 Konnyack A. Thomas v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - Did CSA correctly apply the well-settled factors used to determine custody for purposes of Miranda when concluding that petitioner was not in custody during his interview with the police?
Attorney for Appellant: Ben Miller
Attorney for Appellee: Carrie J. Williams
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 June 12, 2012 the Court will recess until September 6, 2012.
BESSIE M. DECKER
CLERK
|
