|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, December 1, 2011: Bar Admissions No. 60 People’s Insurance Counsel Division v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. ISSUES - INSURANCE - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT INS. SEC. 27-501(a)(2) HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO AN INSURER’S DECISION NOT TO PROVIDE HOMEOWNER’S INSURANCE TO A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN THE STATE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURTS CORRECTLY CONCLUDE BASED ON ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE COMMISSIONER’S FINAL ORDER? Attorney for Appellant: Peter K. Killough No. 42 University of Maryland Medical System Corporation v.
Giuseppina Muti, Personal Representative of the 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? Attorneys for Appellant: Susan T. Preston and Janet A. MacDonald No. 117 (2010 Term) Anthony Grandison v. State of Maryland Attorney for Appellant: Bradford C. Peabody 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.? Attorney for Appellant: Laura N. Venezia No. 48 Tonto Corbin v. State of Maryland 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? Attorney for Appellant: Stephen B. Mercer No. 50 Markino Little v. State of Maryland 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? Attorney for Appellant: Catherine Wolley No. 44 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Dana Eric Carpenter 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? Attorney for Appellant: Leight D. Collins No. 45 Ricky Shamar Washington v. State of Maryland 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? Attorney for Appellant: Bradford C. Peabody No. 47 Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Anand M. Dhanda 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?” Attorney for Appellant: Michael J. McAuliffe No. 54 Leon Dulyx a/k/a Leon Duylx v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER’S MOTIVE TO EXAMINE THE SOLE EYEWITNESS AGAINST HIM AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING CONCERNING POLICE CONDUCT DURING A PHOTOGRAPHIC ARRAY IDENTIFICATION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO PETITIONER’S MOTIVE TO DO SO AT TRIAL? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER WAS GIVEN A “FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY” TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS DESPITE THE SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATIONS PLACED ON PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO QUESTION HIM? Attorney for Appellant: Brian M. Sanford No. 55 Bonnie L. Maddox v. Edward C. Cohn, et al. ISSUES - FORECLOSURE - (1) MAY A SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE UNDER A DEED OF TRUST FILED FOR FORECLOSURE REQUIRE THAT IN ORDER TO BID ON THE PROPERTY AT THE SALE, THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AGREE TO PAY TO THE SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE’S ATTORNEY A STIPULATED FEE OSTENSIBLY FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS? (2) CAN A FORECLOSURE SALE BE “PROPERLY MADE” IF THE SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE IMPOSES AN IMPROPER CONDITION ON THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER? (3) IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT/MORTGAGOR TO PROVE THAT PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS WERE DISCOURAGED FROM ATTENDING THE SALE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SALE WAS NOT “FAIRLY & PROPERLY” MADE? (4) IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF DIFFERENT WHEN A SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING FORECLOSURE SALES AS OPPOSED TO WHEN SOMEONE IMPOSES REQUIREMENTS OR CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE RULES & WHICH ARE IMPROPER? Attorney for Appellant: John B. Robins, IV No. 59 Tyrone Davis v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED AS A RESULT OF A WIRETAP? Attorneys for Appellant: Randy E. MacDonald and Adrienna J. Lawrence No. 56 Potomac Abatement, Inc., et al. v. Edy Sanchez ISSUE - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN, IN A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, IT HELD CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE & LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF MD. CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL. SEC. 9-742 THAT THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION MAY RETAIN JURISDICTION WHILE A PRIOR ORDER IS PENDING ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MD. CODE ANN., LAB & EMPL. SEC. 9-736? Attorney for Appellant: Richard W. Scheiner No. 62 State of Maryland v. Reginald Stringfellow ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID RESPONDENT WAIVE HIS APPELLATE COMPLAINT THAT A VOIR DIRE QUESTION IRREPARABLY BIASED THE ENTIRE JURY AGAINST HIM BY ACCEPTING THE JURY AS EMPANELED? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO ASK THE CHALLENGED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS WHICH INTENDED TO IDENTIFY ANY PROSPECTIVE JUROR BIASED IN FAVOR OR FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER EVIDENCE? (3) IF THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, IS THE ERROR HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN LIGHT OF OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS VOIR DIRE, THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, THE FINAL INSTRUCTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT & THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL? Attorney for Appellant: Daniel J. Dawor No. 61 Frances V. Hamilton v. Baltimore Police Department ISSUES - PUBLIC SAFETY - (1) WHO HOLDS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE RECORD UNDER MD RULE 7-206? (2) DID A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH MD. RULE 7-206 WHEN THE DELAY IN TRANSMITTAL WAS AT LEAST IN PART DUE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY’S ACTIONS OR INACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN ONE DAY BEYOND THE TIME LIMITS AS PRESCRIBED BY MD. RULE 7-206(c)? Attorney for Appellant: Stephanie D. Kinder
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 December 6, 2011, the Court will recess until January 5, 2012.
BESSIE M. DECKER
|