SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2012
Thursday, January 3, 2013:
No. 36 Jody Lee Miles v. State of Maryland
Death penalty appeal.
Attorney for Appellant: Brian Saccenti
Attorney for Respondent: James E. Williams
Misc. 15 In the Matter of the Application of Drew Everett Stewart for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Petitioner: Norman L. Smith
AG No. 98 (2011 Term) In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rex B. Wingerter to the Maryland Bar
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Stanley Alpert
No. 40 A & E North, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Issues - Real Property - 1) Does hardship entitle a condemnee to payment of relocation benefits before resolution of a challenge to the condemning authority's right to acquire the subject property? 2) Does a prejudicial jury view of the condemned property entitle a condemnee to a new trial? 3) Is CSA's new standard to determine whether a condemnee is a displaced person under the Relocation and Assistance Act contrary to the plain language and legislative intent of the act? 4) Did CSA err in confusing the concepts of hardship and prejudice and, as a result, misconstrue this Court's holding in Bern-Shaw v. Baltimore (377 Md. 277)? 5) Is a property owner required to pursue and exhaust the administrative process pertaining to issuance of a relocation payment?
Attorney for Petitioner: David B. Snyder
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew Bailey
No. 100 Gregory Hall, et al. v. Prince George's County Democratic Central Committee, et al.
Issues – State Government - 1) As a matter of first impression, under Art. III, § 13(a)(1) of the MD Constitution where a central committee submits a name to the Governor within 30 days of a vacancy of office in the House of Delegates, does the Governor have a mandatory duty to appoint the person whose name is submitted to him within 15 days? 2) As a matter of first impression, what is the final day for the Governor to perform his duty to appoint under Art III, § 13(a)(1) of the MD Constitution where the 15th day following submission of the name falls on a legal holiday? 3) As a matter of first impression, does the central committee have any authority to rescind the name it submitted to the Governor under MD Constitution Art. III, § 13(a)(1) more than 30 days after the event that created the vacancy in the House of Delegates. 4) Should a writ of mandamus issue to the Governor to appoint the central committee's nominee if he fails to do so after 15 days? 5) Did the trial court err in considering on summary judgment an affidavit that was based upon "information and belief"? 6) Does Art. XV, § 2 of the MD Constitution permit the expulsion of a duly-elected legislator who received a final disposition of probation before judgment? 7) Where charges against an elected official resulted in a final disposition of probation before judgment in another county, did the lower court have the power to revoke this disposition and disqualify that official from completing her term in office?
Attorney for Appellant Gregory Hall: Walter W. Green
Attorney for Appellant Tiffany Alston: Irwin R. Kramer
Attorney for Appellees Gov. Martin O'Malley and Speaker Michael E. Busch: Matthew J. Fader
Attorney for Appellee Prince George's County Democratic Central Committee: Joseph E. Sandler
No. 34 (2011 Term) Paul B. DeWolfe, in his official capacity as the Public Defender for the State of Maryland, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.
Reargument. Issues - Criminal Law - Are Petitioners entitled, under the recently amended Public Defender Act (2012 Md. Laws ch. 504-05), to relief on the basis of the right to counsel provided in either or both the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art. 21 of the Md. Declaration of Rights and/or either or both the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art.24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights.
Attorney for Appellant: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorney for Appellee: Michael Schatzow
No. 6 (2010 Term) Norman Bruce Derr v. State of Maryland
On remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Attorney for Appellant: Stephen B. Mercer
Attorney for Appellee: Robert Taylor, Jr.
No. 37 Orville Cooper v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in allowing an expert witness to testify regarding the report of another expert who did not testify at trial in violation of the rules against the admission of hearsay? 2) Did the trial court err in allowing the non-testifying expert's report into evidence in violation of appellants constitutional right of confrontation? 3) Did the trial court err in allowing the non-testifying expert's report into evidence without a proper foundation in the form of a demonstrated chain of custody of the evidence tested? 4) Did the trial court err in admitting other prejudicial hearsay?
Attorney for Appellant: Peter F. Rose
Attorney for Appellee: Robert Taylor, Jr.
No. 45 Felix L. Johnson, Jr., Deceased v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Issue - Workers' Compensation - Whether a remedial statute that is amended by the General Assembly while a litigant has a pending claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission should apply to the pending claim?
Attorney for Petitioner: Paul D. Beckman
Attorneys for Respondent: William R. Phelan, Jr. and Herbert Burgunder, Jr.
AG No. 74 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Paul Winston Gardner, II
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorneys for Respondent: Paul W. Gardner, II
AG No. 81 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeffrey David Kahl
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey David Kahl
No. 39 Falls Road Community Association, Inc., et al. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et al.
Issues - County Government - 1) Can a writ of mandamus lie to compel the executive branch of county government to enforce the unequivocal terms of an adjudicatory order of that county's board of appeals, or does the county have discretion to refuse to enforce an order of the board of appeals? 2) When the executive branch of county government violates an order of its board of appeals, does a writ of mandamus lie to compel the county to remedy that violation? 3) Must administrative remedies be primary, and must they be pursued and exhausted, when those remedies would be futile because the county itself violated the law? 4) Is the ability to seek supplementary relief under CJ, §3-412 sufficient to meet the requirement in a declaratory judgment action that the requested declaration serve to terminate the controversy giving rise to the action? 5) Is coercive or injunctive relief available under the MD Declaratory Judgment Act? 6) Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant a declaratory judgment for petitioners after finding that declaratory judgment would not terminate the controversy between the parties because a) Petitioners sought a declaration that the repaving of the parking lot was illegal; b) there was no basis to order the tenant to deconstruct the parking lot, since its landlord (Baltimore County) ordered the repaving; and c) Baltimore County could not be ordered to remove the repaving, as it was not subject to a writ of mandamus? 7) Whether Petitioners were entitled to seek a declaratory judgment from the trial court without first pursuing the special statutory remedies available to them for enforcement of zoning orders and regulations? 8) Whether the circuit court was legally correct in granting Respondents' motions for summary judgment on Petitioners' claims for mandamus relief on the ground that the duties imposed on Baltimore County are discretionary in nature? 9) Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in entering judgment for Respondents on Petitioners' claim for declaratory relief on the grounds that such relief would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to this action and that coercive or injunctive relief is not available under the MD Declaratory Judgment Act. 10) Whether the Petitioners' claims for declaratory injunctive and mandamus relief should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael R. McCann
Attorneys for Respondent: Paul Mark Sandler and James J. Nolan, Jr.
No. 42 Constantine Koste v. Town of Oxford, et al.
Issue - Election Law - May signatures on a petition for referendum under Md. Code Ann. Article 23A, §19(g) be counted if obtained after publication of the notice of the annexation resolution but before enactment of the unmodified resolution?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael G. Rust
Attorney for Respondent: Brynja M. Booth
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 January 8, 2013 the Court will recess until February 7, 2013.
BESSIE M. DECKER