Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2015

 

Thursday, February 4, 2016:

Bar Admissions

AG No. 73 (2014 T.)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Rhonda Ilene Framm

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Alvin I. Frederick

No. 20  Manal Kiriakos v. Brandon Phillips

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether the acts of Respondent establish a prima facie claim for negligence under fundamental tort principles? 2) Whether Md. should recognize a narrowly tailored definition of social host liability when an adult directly provides large amounts of alcohol to a teenager when the adult knows the teenager will soon drive?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Jason B. Penn and Adam P. Janet
Attorney for Respondent: Charles E. Wilson, III

No. 55 Nancy Dankos, et al. v. Linda Stapf

Issues – Torts – 1) Are minors intended protectees of CL § 10-117(b), which prohibits adult property owners from allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on their premises? 2) Does MD recognize a duty of care arising from the special relationship between a parent hosting an underage drinking party on her property and a minor attendee who the parent permitted to attend and consume excessive amounts of alcohol?

Attorney for Petitioner: Timothy F. Maloney
Attorneys for Respondent: Clifford A. Robinson and Lauren S. Capelle

 

Friday, February 5, 2016:

No. 60  Rowhouses, Inc. v. Myishia Smith

Issue – Torts – Was the trial court legally correct in granting summary judgment in favor of Petitioner where Respondent failed to prove the existence of lead at 1622 E. Oliver Street?

Attorneys for Petitioner: William C. Parler, Jr., and Kelly A. Grafton
Attorney for Respondent: Scott E. Nevin

No. 61 Marvin Wilson v. Sylvia Wilson

Issues – Family Law – 1) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by finding that Petitioner had breached the parties’ contract when in fact the contract had been void ab initio? 2) Is a service member required to obtain the express agreement of his or her ex-spouse to waive disability benefits, which the ex-spouse would not be entitled to under Federal Law, in order to resolve the issue of the division of the military pension and not be obligated to pay disability benefits directly to the ex-spouse? 3) Did the trial court and CSA err in contravening two prior court orders by requiring Petitioner to pay one-half of his gross disability benefits to Respondent?

Attorney for Petitioner: Kristina Badalian
Attorneys for Respondent: Brooke Schumm, III, and Wendy M. Widmann

No. 56 A Guy Named Moe, LLC, t/a Moe's Southwest Grill v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC et al.

Issue – Corporations and Associations – Did CSA err when it determined that a foreign limited liability, that had previously and correctly registered to do business in MD, but whose registration lapsed or was forfeit, is absolutely and incurably barred from maintaining a lawsuit in the State of Maryland that is filed during such lapse?

Attorney for Petitioner: Sean T. Morris
Attorneys for Respondent: Alan J. Hyatt and Philip C. Dales

 

Monday, February 8, 2016:

AG No. 13  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bruce August Kent

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Alvin I. Frederick

No. 57  State of Maryland v. Jeriko Graves

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court comply with the mandates of Rule 4-215(e), where the court informed Respondent that if he had a meritorious reason for discharging counsel his case would be continued, and directly asked Respondent whether he wanted to discharge counsel, to which Respondent answered that he would “keep [defense counsel] on”?

Attorney for Petitioner: Gary E. O'Connor
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel M. Kobrin

No. 62 Milton Everett Jackson v. Gayle Ann Sollie f/k/a Gayle S. Jackson

Issue – Family Law – Should Md. follow the majority of states and require a trial judge to consider whether Social Security benefits should be offset against the marital portion of a Civil Service Retirement System pension upon dividing assets as a result of divorce?

Attorneys for Appellant: Harry B. Siegel and Lindsay E. Morrow
Attorney for Appellee: Zoa Barnes

 

Tuesday, February 9, 2016:

AG No. 80 (2014 T.)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Erica S. White

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Erica S. White

No. 58 Justin Sharp v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court impermissibly consider Petitioner’s refusal to plead guilty and his exercise of his constitutional right to a trial in fashioning his sentence? 2) Did CSA err in determining that defense counsel did not preserve this issue for appellate review?

Attorney for Petitioner: Allison M. Sayers
Attorney for Respondent: Michelle M. Martin

No. 59 Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Roy T. Schwalbach, et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did CSA veto the Legislature’s amendments to the Critical Areas Law and restore the formulation of “unwarranted hardship” as articulated in Belvoir Farms v. North, 355 Md. 259 (1999)? 2) Did CSA improperly expand the common law doctrine of riparian rights? 3) Did CSA limit the effectiveness of the Critical Areas Law by negating the presumption of non-compliance? 4) Did CSA ignore the Legislature’s requirement that the appellant prove the variance shall not adversely affect water quality or fish, wildlife or plant habitat?

Attorney for Petitioner: Robin R. Cockey
Attorneys for Respondent: Hugh Cropper, IV, and 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 February 9, 2016, the Court will recess until March 3, 2016.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK