Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2015

 

Thursday, November 5, 2015:

Bar Admissions

AG No. 66 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tamara Renee Good

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Tamara Renee Good

AG No. 8 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tamara Renee Good

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Tamara Renee Good

No. 42 Maryland Department of the Environment, et al. v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did the MS4 permit issued by the Md. Dept. of the Environment to Montgomery Co. for the county’s municipal storm sewer system appropriately incorporate by reference publicly available materials and was the requirement for restoration of 20% of pre-2002 developed impervious surfaces specific, measurable, and enforceable? 2) Was the Department’s final decision to issue the permit with a 20% restoration requirement, and a reporting requirement to establish strategies to address wasteload allocations, supported by substantial evidence?

Attorney for Petitioner: Paul N. De Santis
Attorney for Respondent: Jennifer C. Chavez

No. 43 Blue Water Baltimore, et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did the MS4 permits issued by the Md. Dept. of the Environment to Baltimore Co., Anne Arundel Co., and Prince George’s Co. for the counties’ municipal storm sewer system appropriately incorporate by reference publicly available materials and was the requirement for restoration of 20% of pre-2002 developed impervious surfaces specific, measurable, and enforceable? 2) Was the Department’s final decision to issue the permits with a 20% restoration requirement based upon the State’s Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads strategies, and a reporting requirement to establish strategies to address wasteload allocations, supported by substantial evidence?

Attorneys for Appellant: Jennifer C. Chavez and Paul W. Smail
Attorney for Appellee: Paul N. De Santis

No. 44 Blue Water Baltimore, et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment, et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Do the provisions of the MS4 permit that require that the public have an opportunity to review and comment on restoration plans intended to meet the wasteload allocations established for the permittee under applicable total maximum daily loads satisfy state public participation requirements? 2) Do the provisions of the MS4 permit satisfy federal monitoring requirements?

Attorney for Appellant: Khushi K. Desai
Attorneys for Appellee: Paul N. De Santis and M. Rosewin Sweeney

 

Friday, November 6, 2015:

No. 27  Moran Perry v. Asphalt & Concrete Services, Inc.

Issue – Civil Procedure – Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by admitting the evidence of insurance?

Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas C. Costello
Attorneys for Respondent: Imoh E. Akpan and Ralph L. Arnsdorf

No. 28 Mashea Louise Ray-Simmons a/k/a Tayanna Simmons and Antoinette McGouldrick v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – When there is an allegation of racial and gender discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge, does a prosecutor’s response that she intended to replace the stricken African-American male juror with another African-American male satisfy the requirement of Batson v. Kentucky, that the State a) provide a specific explanation for each challenged strike, which is b) racially and, with respect to gender, neutral?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael R. Braudes
Attorney for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.

No. 29  Felicia Lockett v. Blue Ocean Bristol, LLC

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in relying on the landlord’s claim of certain non-rent charges due and owing to conclude that the tenant was not current on her rent and thus not eligible for relief on her claim for retaliatory eviction in violation of RP § 8-208.1? 2) Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by failing to award attorneys’ fees to a tenant who prevailed on a retaliation defense and counterclaim pursuant to the fee-shifting provision in RP § 8-208.1 without articulating any reasoning for denying fees?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Tassity Johnson and Debra Gardner
Attorney for Respondent: Diane C. Bristow

 

Monday, November 9, 2015:

No. 23  Gail B. Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether an inverse condemnation claim is covered by the Maryland Tort Claims Act and the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 2) Whether a trespass claim is covered by the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 3) Whether CSA exceeded the scope of this Court’s remand order when it considered an issue expressly disavowed by Respondents? 4) Whether CSA erred when it held that Petitioner failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation against Respondents?

Attorney for Petitioner: G. Macy Nelson
Attorney for Respondent: Steven R. Johnson

No. 86 (2014 T.)  State of Maryland v. Hector Leonel Gutierrez & Edgar Perez-Lazaro

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA usurp the role of the jury by viewing the contested facts in the light most favorable to the defendants and accepting, nearly verbatim, the defendants’ statement of facts? 2) Under Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174 (2010), can a rational jury infer that two roommates had joint constructive possession of cocaine found in common areas of a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment? 3) Did CSA err in finding that the State’s rebuttal argument was improper?

Attorney for Petitioner: Benjamin A. Harris
Attorneys for Respondents: Thomas M. Donnelly (for Gutierrez) and Gregory W. Gardner (for Perez-Larazo)

No. 24 In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Dustin R.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Does an alleged scrivener’s error in the form of an order and docket entry render the order invalid and require dismissal of an appeal, even if it might deprive an extraordinarily medically fragile youth of life-sustaining relief? 2) Did the juvenile court exceed its authority under the guardianship law by ordering DHMH to enter into a plan to obtain the same life-sustaining care for a youth aging out of the system that he has received for the last ten years? 3) Is a juvenile court order requiring a State agency to develop and approve a plan to obtain ongoing life-sustaining care for a ward of the court, entered pursuant to express provisions of the guardianship statute, unconstitutional under the separation-of-powers doctrine?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mitchell Y. Mirviss
Attorney for Respondent: Kathleen A. Ellis

No. 25 Baltimore County, Maryland v. Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4

Issue – County Government – Whether public policy, as clearly delineated in the Baltimore County Charter, the Baltimore County Code, controlling Maryland case law, and the separation of powers doctrine, provides an exception to the enforcement of the arbitration award in this case?

Attorney for Petitioner: James J. Nolan, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: John M. West

 

Tuesday, November 10, 2015:

Misc. No. 1 In the Matter of the Application of Philip Davis for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

Attorney for Petitioner: Byron L. Warnken

No. 30 Sam Yonga v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the statutory writ of actual innocence under MD Code Ann. Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 8-301 apply to guilty plea cases? 2) If so, is it clear error and/or an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deny a request for a new trial where the alleged victim and the only witness described in the statement of facts both testified that the alleged events never happened when the trial judge heard testimony at a hearing under §8-301?

Attorney for Petitioner: William M. Ferris
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams

AG No. 87 (2014 T.)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. C. Trent Thomas

Attorneys for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell and Ebtehaj Kalantar
Attorney for Respondent: C. Trent Thomas

No. 26 Andrew David Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc., et al.

Issue – Torts – Does the doctrine of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity apply to the noise of a fireworks discharge, based on the facts of this case?

Attorney for Petitioner: Lawrence E. Finegan
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah N. Koop

 

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 10, 2015 the Court will recess until December 3, 2015.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK