Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2012

 

Thursday, October 4, 2012:

Bar Admissions

Misc. 6  In the Matter of the Application of Dennis Alan Van Dusen for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

Attorney for Applicant: Dennis Alan Van Dusen

No. 20  State of Maryland v. Latresha L. Weems

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Are the requirements of Criminal Law Art. § 7-104(d) met if it is shown that a defendant knew that he or she had obtained property by mistake, learned the identity of the owner, failed to take measures to restore the property to the owner, and intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the State failed to prove that Respondent took reasonable measures to restore the property to its owner?

Attorney for Petitioner: Robert Taylor, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Brian Zavin

No. 11  Ronald L. Powell, et al. v. Jeffrey R. Breslin, et al.

Issues - Civil Procedure - 1) Should a case that has been dismissed because of the preclusive effect of an earlier judgment in another case be reopened if the earlier judgment is vacated? 2) If a civil case that should have been dismissed without prejudice is erroneously dismissed with prejudice & the error is not corrected until after the limitations period has expired, does the plaintiff have any recourse?

Attorney for Appellant: David M. Kopstein
Attorney for Appellee: Edwin L. Keating

 

Friday, October 5, 2012:

No. 14 State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company

Issue - Taxation - Did the MD Tax Court correctly interpret Public Utilities Art. §§ 7-524 & 7-548 when it rejected an adjustment to the taxable gross receipts of a public utility, where the franchise tax is imposed on the statutorily-defined gross receipts from the utility's electricity distribution charges, where the adjustment sought by the utility was based on a credit that offset the increased cost to consumers of electricity generation, & where the offset did not alter the revenue received by the utility from its distribution service?

Attorney for Petitioner: David M. Lyon
Attorney for Respondent: Harry D. Shapiro

No. 17 Graylin Bernard Spence v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did CSA properly decline to address the legality of a sentence when that court vacated the conviction upon which the allegedly illegal sentence was based? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to establish that petitioner was subject to enhanced penalty as a subsequent offender? 3) Did CSA err in finding the trial court was obligated to conduct a MD Rule 4-215(e) hearing where the trial court was never apprised that Petitioner had a desire to discharge his assigned public defender?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian M. Saccenti
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan R. Dietrich

No. 22 WSG Holdings v. Larry Bowie, et al.

Issues - Administrative Law - 1) Did CSA err when it found that objections to the site visit were preserved for appellate review & that there was no recorded vote or any recognition that the exclusion of some members of the public were subject to the procedural requirements of the state Open Meetings Act? 2) Did CSA err when it found that the March 17, 2009 site visit violated the open meeting requirement? 3) Did CSA err in reversing the judgment & remanding the matter to the Board for another hearing & decision without further instructions to the trial court and Board?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mark D. Mudd
Attorney for Respondent: Kurt W. Wolfgang

 

Tuesday, October 9, 2012:

No. 23 State of Maryland v. John Wesley Ray

Issue - Criminal Law - Did CSA err in reversing the lower court's proper denial of Respondent's motion to dismiss those re-instituted charges in light of Ray v. State, 410 Md. 385 (2009)?

Attorney for Petitioner: James E. Williams
Attorney for Respondent: David P. Kennedy

No. 12 Maryland Insurance Commissioner v. Leon Kaplan

Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did the Insurance Commissioner correctly find that ERISA does not preempt Md. Code Ann., Ins. §14-139, where there is no indication that Congress intended to preempt or supplant State efforts to protect assets of non-profit health insurers from depletion and where ERISA and §14-139 serve altogether different purposes? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that ERISA preempts any State regulatory action pursuant to §14-139 that affects the amount of any payment from an ERISA plan, even where the payment would be made out of corporate assets of the non-profit insurer? 3) Did the trial court err in failing to recognize that §14-139 regulates insurance & therefore is not preempted by ERISA?

Attorney for Appellant: J. Van Lear Dorsey
Attorney for Appellee: Ward B. Coe, III

No. 19 100 Investment Limited Partnership, et al. v. Columbia Town Center Title Company, et al.

Issues - Torts - 1) Did CSA err by holding that title companies do not owe a tort duty of care when conducting a title search? 2) Did CSA err by holding that the title insurer was not vicariously liable for the negligence of the title companies who were its agents?

Attorney for Petitioner: James E. Carbine
Attorney for Respondent: Richard E. Hagerty

 

Wednesday, October 10, 2012:

AG 50 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Stephen Rand

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Alan M. Wright

No. 21 Benn Ray, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.

Issue - Real Property - Did CSA err when it ruled that Petitioners lacked standing because they were neither prima facie aggrieved nor specially aggrieved by the City's land use decision?

Attorney for Petitioner: G. Macy Nelson
Attorneys for Respondent: Sandra R. Gutman and Charles S. Hirsch

No. 18 Reginald McCracken v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Does the plain-feel doctrine allow police to seize evidence when they have only reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause, to associate that evidence with criminal activity? 2) Did CSA err in concluding the officer could seize a set of keys & a car remote because he had probable cause to believe they were evidence of "hacking"?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael T. Torres
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie 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 October 10, 2012 the Court will recess until November 1, 2012.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK