Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2013

 

Thursday, October 31, 2013:

Bar Admissions

AG No. 36 (2012 Term)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. George Jacob Geesing

Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk
Attorney for Respondent: Kathleen Howard Meredith

No. 22 Montgomery County, Maryland v. John Distil

Issues - County Government - 1) Can the County enforce a permissive user clause in its self-insurance guarantee that excludes insurance coverage to County employees who use their county-owned vehicles outside the scope of the permissive use and can the County seek reimbursement from the employee for the damages incurred? 2) Does the collective bargaining agreement between the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 35, and the County bar the County from subrogating against a police officer for the cost of repairs to his county vehicle that was driven in violation of the vehicle use policy?

Attorney for Petitioner: Patricia P. Via
Attorney for Respondent: Thomas Patrick Ryan

 

Friday, November 1, 2013:

No. 25  Montgomery County, Maryland v. Khana Soleimanzadeh, et al.

Issues - Real Property - 1) Where there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the valuation of a property taken in an eminent domain proceeding, may the trial court enter judgment pursuant to MD Rule 2-501 in favor of the condemnor as a matter of law? 2) Does a condemnee have a constitutionally protected right to have a jury determine just compensation even when sanctions against the condemnee prohibit the condemnee from introducing evidence in support of a claim for just compensation and the condemnee fails to show the existence of a dispute of material fact as to the compensation to be awarded? 3) Does a condemnee have a burden to produce evidence when it disputes a condemnor's estimate of fair market value? 4) Did the award of summary judgment in favor of the condemnor impair the condemnees' right to a jury trial? 5) Can the right to a jury trial in an eminent domain proceeding be waived by the landowner's failure to follow clearly proscribed rules?

Attorney for Petitioner: Robert Birenbaum
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey S. Larson

No. 27 Montgomery County, Maryland v. Joseph Soleimanzadeh

Issues - Real Property - 1) Where there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the valuation of a property taken in an eminent domain proceeding, may the trial court enter judgment pursuant to MD Rule 2-501 in favor of the condemnor as a matter of law? 2) Does a condemnee have a constitutionally protected right to have a jury determine just compensation even when sanctions against the condemnee prohibit the condemnee from introducing evidence in support of a claim for just compensation and the condemnee fails to show the existence of a dispute of material fact as to the compensation to be awarded? 3) Does a condemnee have a burden to produce evidence when it disputes a condemnor's estimate of fair market value? 4) Did the award of summary judgment in favor of the condemnor impair the condemnees' right to a jury trial? 5) Can the right to a jury trial in an eminent domain proceeding be waived by the landowner's failure to follow clearly proscribed rules?

Attorney for Petitioner: Robert Birenbaum
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey S. Larson

No. 26 Wesley Torrance Kelly v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner's motions to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless placement and subsequent tracking of a global positioning system (“GPS”) device on Petitioner's vehicle? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in a situation where no “binding appellate precedent” existed that authorized the placement and tracking of a GPS device for purposes of establishing probable cause to arrest?

Attorney for Petitioner: Juan P. Reyes
Attorney for Respondent: Brian S. Kleinbord

No. 24 Noel Tshiani v. Marie-Louise Tshiani

Issues - Family Law - 1) Does MD recognize under the principle of comity foreign wedding ceremonies where the groom participated only by telephone? 2) Does MD require the physical presence of both parties at a wedding ceremony in order for the marriage to be valid?

Attorney for Petitioner: John S. Weaver
Attorney for Respondent: Judith A. Wolfer

 

Monday, November 4, 2013:

No. 30 Wilhelmina Bradford v. JAI Medical Systems Managed Care Organization, Inc.

Issue - Health Law - Did CSA err when it ruled that as a matter of law the evidence was insufficient to establish that the concededly negligent podiatrist was the apparent agent of Respondent?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian J. Murphy
Attorney for Respondent: David J. McManus

No. 28  Hubert Allen Wood v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Where Petitioner's counsel filed a request for a competency evaluation that was later withdrawn with the Petitioner's concurrence, was the trial court required to determine, on evidence contained in the record, whether Petitioner was competent to stand trial pursuant to Crim. Proc. Art § 3-104(a) and/or as a matter of due process? 2) Was the trial court required to explicitly state on the record its determination of Petitioner's competency or does the implicit determination expressed in the trial court allowing Petitioner to withdraw his request for a competency evaluation suffice? 3) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court “implicitly determined” that Petitioner was competent to stand trial? 4) Did CSA err in its determination that Petitioner had not presented enough evidence to generate a jury instruction on legally adequate provocation?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Ann Ince

No. 31 TIG Insurance Company, et al. v. Monongahela Power Company, et al.

Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did CSA err when it held that an insurance policy becomes effective upon an insurer's issuance of a proposed policy to the policyholder? 2) Did CSA err when it affirmed that Pennsylvania law applied to interpretation and application of the terms of the insurance policies at issue in this case?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Frank J. Mastro and James J. Hickey
Attorney for Respondent: Gerald P. Konkel

 

Tuesday, November 5, 2013:

No. 29  Stephen Simmons v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Did manifest necessity exist to justify the declaration of a mistrial in a case where defense counsel's opening statement the jury was told that Petitioner had offered to take a lie detector test, where the prosecutor's objection to that statement was sustained and an immediate curative jury instruction was given, and where the prosecutor waited to request a mistrial for two days, until after four State witnesses had testified and after the trial court had ruled that an expert witness for the State would not be allowed to testify?

Attorney for Petitioner: Allison Pierce Brasseaux
Attorney for Respondent: Sara Page Pritzlaff

No. 32  Franklin Credit Management Corporation v. Fred Nefflen

Issues - Civil Procedure - 1) Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in entering a default judgment under Rule 2-613(f) where the complaint or the evidence the court considered at the default hearing established that the plaintiff's claims are legally invalid? 2) Does Rule 2-613(g) permit a circuit court to revisit a defendant's liability through a Rule 2-534 motion to alter or amend a default judgment?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jason C. Rose
Attorney for Respondent: Scott C. Borison

No. 10  The Brethren Mutual Insurance Company v. Ember Louise Buckley

Issue - Insurance Law - Did CSA err in ruling that respondent's breach of contract claim against petitioner for uninsured motorist benefits was preserved despite the fact that she executed a release that, under its plain language, released all claims arising out of her accident against “all persons, firms or corporations” because such a global release complied with the settlement procedures set out in MD. Code Ann. Ins. § 19-511?

Attorney for Petitioner: Kathleen M. McDonald
Attorney for Respondent: John B. Bratt

 

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 November 5, 2013 the Court will recess until December 5, 2013.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK