SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012:
AG 35 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Daniel Quinn Mahone
Attorneys for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless and James P. Botluk
Attorneys for Respondent: Barry J.C. Kissin and Daniel Q. Mahone
No. 5 Eileen York v. Richard Hession
Issue - Civil Procedure - Does the rule against splitting causes of action bar a plaintiff from asserting a claim when that claim arose before the plaintiff filed an unrelated action against the same party?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Michael R. McCann
Attorneys for Respondent: Neil Intrater (not arguing)
No. 8 Warren Jerome Yates v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Is the admission of Petitioner's hearsay confession harmless error when the essential content of that confession was elsewhere properly admitted without objection? 2) Did CSA err in adopting the res gestae theory of second-degree felony murder in sustaining petitioner's conviction? 3) Did CSA abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise plain error review of the trial court's use of jury instructions consistent with MD Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction?
Attorney for Appellant: Lauren K. Collogan
Attorney for Appellee: Daniel J. Jawor
No. 7 Demetrius Nickens v. Mount Vernon Realty Group, LLC, et al.
Issues - Real Property - 1) Did CSA err in holding that the common law right of peaceable self-help permits a foreclosure purchaser to surreptitiously enter a residential property & change the locks while the resident is out? 2) Did CSA err in dismissing plaintiff’s conversion claim, holding that plaintiff had abandoned all personal property in the residence, despite the complete absence of evidence that he intended to abandon it?
Attorney for Appellant: Thomas Davies
Attorneys for Appellee: Michele Z. Blumenfeld and Russell J. Pope
No. 125 (2011 Term) John Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Issues - Constitutional Law - (1) Does the retroactive application of Maryland’s newly enacted sex offender registration laws violate the federal constitutional ban on ex post facto laws and Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights prohibiting ex post facto laws and ex post facto restrictions? (2) Do Maryland’s sex offender registration laws violate petitioner’s federal and state constitutional rights to due process? (3) Given that the plea agreement entered into by petitioner could not have contemplated registering as a sex offender, is he entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement?
Attorney for Appellant: Nancy S. Forster
Attorneys for Appellee: Stuart M. Nathan and Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
No. 2 Angela Jones Kendall v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - Was it error for the circuit court to deny motion seeking dismissal of the State’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal of the charges against Petitioner based on, inter alia, a claim of double jeopardy?
Attorneys for Appellant: Leigh R. Melton and Jesse B. Hammock
Attorney for Appellee: Mary Ann Ince
No. 3 Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4 v. Baltimore County, Maryland
Issues - Labor & Employment - 1) Under MD common law, should an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement be enforced after that agreement’s expiration when an otherwise arbitrable grievance is presented concerning vested rights that arise out of that collective bargaining agreement? 2) Does the common law of MD require the court or the arbitrator to determine the arbitrability of a postexpiration grievance arising out of a collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause? 3) Did the lower court err in holding that in the arbitration opinion & award at issue in litigation, the arbitrator failed to address the question of whether the arbitration clause had expired?
Attorneys for Appellant: Jeffrey L. Gibbs and Matthew Clash-Drexler
Attorney for Appellee: James Nolan
AG 86 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gerald Isadore Katz
Attorney for Petitioner: Ray A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Peter F. Axelrad
No. 4 Ramiro Arce Gonzalez v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court correctly conclude that State met its burden of proving that Petitioner’s Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when Miranda warnings were given in a mixture of languages and State failed to introduce the content of those warnings into the record? 2) Did CSA improperly shift the burden of persuasion to petitioner when it required him to present sufficient evidence that he did not understand one of the languages used when informed of his Miranda rights?
Attorney for Appellant: Juan P. Reyes
Attorney for Appellee: Todd W. Hesel
No. 9 James K. Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, et al.
Issue - Tort Law - Should this Court ameliorate or repudiate the doctrine of contributory negligence & replace it with a comparative negligence regime?
Attorneys for Appellant: Bruce M. Plaxen and John Vail
Attorney for Appellee: Douglas W. Biser
No. 10 Cherie Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City
Issues - Tort Law - 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in precluding testimony from Petitioner’s expert witness on the grounds that the expert lacked qualifications and an adequate factual basis as to the source of Petitioner’s lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court correctly grant Respondent’s Motion of Summary Judgment & did CSA correctly decline to review that decision?
Attorney for Appellant: William Beveridge, Jr. and Scott E. Nevin
Attorney for Appellee: Paul J. Weber
No. 1 Veronica Tinsley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Issues - Transportation - (1) Whether petitioner’s claims against WMATA are barred by governmental immunity under Sec. 80 of the WMATA Compact? (2) Whether petitioner failed to make a prima facie case of negligence? (3) Whether the trial court erred in allowing petitioner’s expert witness who questioned WMATA’s immunized selection of cleaning products?
Attorney for Appellant: James W. Taglieri
Attorney for Appellee: Gerard J. Stief
No. 25 Kim Hodge v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Issues - Transportation - 1) Whether Petitioner's claims against WMATA are barred by governmental immunity under § 80 of the WMATA Compact, codified as Md. Transport. § 10-204? 2) Whether WMATA's claimed immunity is limited by § 75 of said compact regarding compliance with state and local laws as there exists a wide body of case law in Maryland providing for premises liability? 3) Whether WMATA's claimed immunity is limited by § 75 of said compact as Prince George's County has enacted a Property Standards and Management Code and a Fire Prevention Code which preclude commercial businesses from failing to clean and police their floors? 4) Whether Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case of negligence as a matter of law in light of the blizzard which occurred shortly before Petitioner's fall?
Attorney for Appellant: James L. Liskow
Attorney for Appellee: Gerard J. Stief
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 September 11, 2012 the Court will recess until October 4, 2012.
BESSIE M. DECKER