| February 2012 Schedule |
| Date |
Docket # |
Title |
| 02-07-12 |
No. 67 |
Maryland Board of Public Works, et al. v.
K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC
Issues - Environmental - (1) Did the Board of Public Works act constitutionally & within its legal boundaries when it denied a license for appellee to place structures over, on, in and under state-owned tidal wetlands? (2) Is the Board of Public Works vested with discretionary authority over the issuance of licenses for dredging or filling State wetlands?
|
| 02-07-12 |
AG 70 (2010 T.) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Louis Peter Tanko, Jr. |
| 02-07-12 |
No. 71 |
Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a
GAF Materials Corporation v. Board of Education of Baltimore County
Issue - Education - Is the "goods" and "commodities" exception to public bidding requirements set forth in Md. Code Ann., Educ. Sec. 5-112 applicable to the procurement of roofing replacement construction projects where the cost is more than $25,000? |
| 02-07-12 |
No. 90 |
Vanessa Fisher v. Eastern Correctional Institution
Issue - Personnel & Pensions - Whether the lower court correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the grounds that, by allowing the secretary of her agency additional time to meet his statutory responsibly to decide her appeal, she inadvertently rendered her appeal untimely? |
| 02-06-12 |
AG 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Barry S. Brown
|
| 02-06-12 |
AG 90 (2009 T.) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Harvey Malcolm Nusbaum
|
| 02-06-12 |
No. 88 |
McKenzie A. Nicolas v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) Does a jury note with no date or time stamp found in the appellate record establish that the trial court received the jury communication at issue in order to trigger the requirements of Md. Rule 4-326(d)? (2) Did the lower court err in holding that petitioner’s convictions for second degree assault do not merge into his conviction for resisting arrest for sentencing purposes where the record is ambiguous as to whether the jury convicted petitioner of second degree assault based on acts different than those underlying his conviction for resisting arrest? |
| 02-03-12 |
No. 82 |
Washington Home Remodelers, Inc. v.
State of Maryland, Office of the Attorney General,
Consumer Protection Division
Issues - Commercial Law - (1) Does the Consumer Protection Division have investigative & enforcement authority over the access & use of consumer credit reports in Md. Code Ann. State gov. Sec. 14-1201, et. seq. when that authority is specifically vested with the Commissioner of Financial Regulation of the Depart. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation? (2) Does the Consumer Protection Division have investigative & enforcement authority over the MD home improvement law, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. Sec. 8-101, et. seq. when that authority is specifically vested with the MD Home Improvement Commission? |
| 02-03-12 |
AG 9 |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Adrian Van Nelson, II |
| 02-03-12 |
No. 85 |
HNS Development, LLC v.
People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, et al.
Issues - (1) Did the County Board of Appeals impermissibly create a new requirement of master plan compliance in addition to that contained in the stated development regulations? (2) Did the County Board of Appeals impermissibly create upon a finding of master plan conflict a means of taking without compensation? (3) Is the statement on a development plan that a County agency would oppose further development of a parcel & lot the same as an exaction or condition of development as discussed in City of Annapolis v. Waterman? |
| 02-03-12 |
No. 83 |
Peter Paul Toland, Jr. v. Akiko Futagi
Issues - Constitutional Law - (1) Whether the trial court erred & violated petitioner’s due process rights & fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody & control of his daughter in violation of the U.S. Constitution & the MD Declaration of Rights? (2) Whether the trial court erred & misapplied the MD’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act when it granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss? |
| 02-02-12 |
Bar Admissions |
|
| 02-02-12 |
Misc. 8 |
In the Matter of the Application of R.C.S. For Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
| 02-02-12 |
AG 10 |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Darlene H. Smith |
| 02-02-12 |
No. 41 |
Michael S. Barclay, et ux. v. Lena Briscoe, et al., Lena Briscoe, Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Eugene Richardson v. Ports America Baltimore, Inc., et al. v. Ports of America Baltimore, Inc., et al.
Issues - (1) Whether employers have a duty to the public when the employee's extended work schedule caused sleep deprivation, resulting in the employee falling asleep at the wheel of his/her vehicle during his/her commute home, & causing a foreseeable injury to members of the general public? (2) Whether the special circumstances exception to the Coming & Going Rule in Tort should apply so as to establish liability against an employer in favor of a third party when the employer is aware or should be aware of the potential for sleep deprivation caused by the employee's extended work schedule & that sleep deprivation continues to affect the employee during his commute home, following the completion of the extended work schedule? (3) Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment because disputes of material fact exist? (4) Did the lower court err in dicta in its opinion suggesting that it was appropriate for a state court to expand vicarious liability of an employer for injuries caused by & during the commute home by its fatigued employee in cases where the employer scheduled the employee to work longer hours than usual? (5) Given petitioners' argument that Ports America allegedly allowed its employees to work in excess of a reasonable number of hours pursuant to the terms of a National Collection Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covering those employees to the extent that petitioners' claims are intrinsically bound up in the terms of the CBA, are they exclusively matters for federal jurisdiction such that the application of state law is preempted in this case by federal labor laws? |
| 02-02-12 |
No. 89 |
Chaz Kinichi Bazzle v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) Did the trial court properly decline petitioner’s request to instruct the jury on the theory of voluntary intoxication? (2) In a prosecution in which the identity of the perpetrator is at issue is it appropriate to admit into evidence the level of certainty of the complaining witness? |
| 02-02-12 |
No. 87 |
Robert S. Cochran, Jr., et al. v. Griffith Energy Services, Inc., et al.
Issue - Are injured individuals who are not owners & do not have the power to test the property barred by a prior judgment based upon the ownership interest such that a party who commits fraud during litigation continues to escape liability even when that fraud inflicted actual harm on the victims independent of the litigation? |
| January 2012 Schedule |
| Date |
Docket # |
Title |
| 01-10-12 |
|
In the Matter of the Application of R. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
| 01-10-12 |
No. 75 |
Bagada Dionas v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - did the lower court err in finding that the improper limitation of cross-examination of a witness’ expectation of leniency was harmless error where the jury deliberated for five days after three and a half days of testimony and sent out four notes indicating that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict or were otherwise having difficulty with deliberations? |
| 01-10-12 |
No. 77 |
District of Columbia v. Wayne Singleton, et al.
Issue - when a motor vehicle leaves the road & passengers sue for damages & the only evidence at trial is by a passenger who was asleep at the time the vehicle left the road & awoke only as the vehicle was airborne & who did not know how or why the vehicle left the road, did the trial court properly dismiss the case at the close of plaintiffs’ case and did the lower court err by reversing that decision? |
| 01-10-12 |
No. 76 |
Tyrone L. Smith v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - did the lower court correctly conclude that the exceptions to the licensing requirement set forth in subsections (2) & (3) of Transportation Article, Sec. 16-101(a) are not essential elements of the offense of driving without a license, but are instead affirmative defenses that must be raised by the defendant? |
| 01-09-12 |
No. 53a
No. 53b |
Dorothy M. Tracey v. Anthony K. Solesky and Irene Solesky, as the Parents, Guardians and Next Friends of Dominic Solesky, a Minor
Issues - (1) is the harboring of american staffordshire terriers (pit bulls) by tenants an inherently dangerous activity for which landlords may be held strictly liable? (2) does MD jurisprudence permit an inference of knowledge of prior vicious propensities of a domestic animal by a landlord (a) whose tenant harbors the animal in leased premises based upon subjective conclusions as to the animal’s temperament of neighbors who have made limited observations of the animal’s behavior which were never conveyed to the landlord? and (b) based upon the existence of an exculpatory clause in a residential lease concerning bodily injury caused by the tenant’s pets? (3) may a landlord be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s domestic animal due to the failure to require reasonable confinement of a domestic animal in the leased premises when the animal escapes the premises by a means which the landlord had no reasonable basis to foresee? (4) after Shields and Matthews was the inherently dangerous/vicious nature of pit bulls known to Maryland landlords? (5) did Matthews impose a duty upon landlords who rent to tenants with pit bulls in a residential neighborhood to act with reasonable care in requiring appropriate housing or storage of the two pit bulls when outside the house? |
| 01-09-12 |
No. 68 |
Alonzo Jay King, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) did the trial court err by denying appellant’s motion to suppress dna evidence obtained through a warrantless search conducted without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing? (2) did the court below improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense to demonstrate that a search or seizure made without individualized suspicion is unreasonable? |
| 01-09-12 |
No. 74 |
Johnette Cosby v. Department of Human Resources, Allegany County Department of Social Services
Issue - Family Law - did the Maryland Legislature when removing from Fam. Law. Art., Sec. 5-706.1 the requirement that a finding of neglect in a CINA case preclude a petitioner from challenging a registry entry, intend to still allow a petitioner to be blocked by collateral estoppel? |
| 01-09-12 |
No. 78 |
In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Cross H.
Issue - Family Law - may the circuit court proceed with a termination of parental rights hearing when the parents’ appeal of the CINA Order changing the permanency plan from reunification to non-relative adoption is still pending in the CSA? |
| 01-06-12 |
Bar Admissions |
|
| 01-06-12 |
No. 70 |
Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. Mirant Ash Management, LLC, et al.
Issues - (1) did the lower court err when it reversed more than two decades of this court’s precedent & added a new standing requirement for intervention as of right? (2) did the lower court err when it held that the MD Department of the Environment adequately represents the citizen-petitioners’ interests in an enforcement action despite the department’s repeated admissions to the contrary? |
| 01-06-12 |
No. 73 |
Ocie L. Black, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - does a jury note with no date or time stamp found in the appellate record establish that the trial court received the jury communication at issue in order to trigger the requirements of MD. Rule 4-326(d)? |
| 01-06-12 |
No. 81 |
120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.
Issues - (1) whether an incidental third party beneficiary’s challenge to enforce a contract presents a justiciable controversy? (2) whether plaintiff below has any basis to assert a private cause of action challenging the trust’s review & approval of the proposed superblock development under the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the trust & the city? |
| 01-06-12 |
No. 72 |
Alicia Gomez v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc.
Issues - Commercial Law - (1) was the lower court wrong to conclude that the MD Credit Services Business Act (act) requires a direct payment from the consumer to the loan arranger and therefore petitioner did not state a claim? (2) was the lower court in error in finding that the general assembly did not intend the usury amendment or the act in general to apply to a refund anticipation loan arranger like respondent because it does not perform credit repair? (3) did lower court err when it stated or implied that the act applies only to credit repair companies & to businesses that arrange loans for consumers using third-party lenders with higher interest rates than permitted under MD law? (4) did the lower court err in suggesting that the act only applies to credit services business arrangements in which businesses receive money or other valuable consideration directly from the consumer? |
| 01-05-12 |
Bar Admissions |
|
| 01-05-12 |
AG 8 |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michelle Lynn Payer |
| 01-05-12 |
AG 6 |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jude Ambe |
| 01-05-12 |
No. 46 |
Muhammad H. Abdul-Maleek v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) whether the lower court violated Sec. 12-702(c) of the MD. Courts & Jud. Proceed. Art. when it increased the defendant’s sentence based on the fact that he exercised his right to appeal & receive a de novo jury trial? (2) whether the lower court violated the defendant’s due process rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Const. & Art. 24 of the MD. Declaration of Rights as set forth in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) & Colten v. Kennedy, 407 U.S. 104, 112 (1953)? |
| 01-05-12 |
No. 57 |
Carlton M. Green, Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter L. Green, et al. v. Helen Nassif
Issues - Estates and Trusts - (1) as a matter of first impression, what are “enforceable claims” in Et Sec. 1-101(n) (renumbered 1-101(p)) and what enforceable claims are to be properly deducted in calculating the net estate for the elective share in this case? (2) did the lower court err in holding that the elective share is entitled to income? (3) does the Principal & Income Act apply to the elective share? (4) did the trial court err by allowing millions of dollars in claims to be deducted twice when calculating the “net estate” for purposes of determining the widowed spouse’s statutory share? |
| 01-05-12 |
No. 58 |
Charles Robert Phillips v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) did the lower court correctly determine that Lt. McDermott’s statements to petitioner were not the functional equivalent of interrogation where after petitioner invoked his right to counsel, McDermott immediately ceased any questioning & informed petitioner that the police could not talk to him further but that petitioner could change his mind, that petitioner would like to hear his side of the story and that if petitioner did change his mind he would have to reaffirm that he did not want counsel? (2) was any error in the denial of petitioner’s suppression motion harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where petitioner’s statement to police provided the only evidentiary basis for petitioner’s claim of self-defense/accident & where overwhelming evidence apart from the statement established that petitioner brutally murdered the elderly victim? (3) did petitioner fail to preserve his current claim that Lt. McDermott’s statements telling him that he could reinitiate conversation with the police were the functional equivalent of interrogation where the terms “functional equivalent of interrogation” were not mentioned at the suppression hearing & where defense counsel did not dispute the prosecutor’s assertion that petitioner reinitiated the conversation? |
| December 2011 Schedule |
| Date |
Docket # |
Title |
| 12-06-11 |
No. 59 |
Tyrone Davis v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - did the trial court properly deny petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a wiretap? |
| 12-06-11 |
No. 56 |
Potomac Abatement, Inc., et al. v. Edy Sanchez
Issue - Labor & Employment - did the lower court err when, in a case of first impression, it held contrary to the plain language & legislative history of MD. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. Sec. 9-742 that the Workers’ Compensation Commission may retain jurisdiction while a prior order is pending on appeal pursuant to the provisions of MD. Code Ann., Lab & Empl. Sec. 9-736? |
| 12-06-11 |
No. 62 |
State of Maryland v. Reginald Stringfellow
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) did respondent waive his appellate complaint that a voir dire question irreparably biased the entire jury against him by accepting the jury as empaneled? (2) did the trial court properly exercise its discretion to ask the challenged voir dire questions which intended to identify any prospective juror biased in favor or forensic evidence to the exclusion of all other evidence? (3) if the trial court erred, is the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of other contemporaneous voir dire, the presentation of evidence, the final instructions of the trial court & the arguments of counsel? |
| 12-06-11 |
No. 61 |
Frances V. Hamilton v. Baltimore Police Departmen
Issues - Public Safety - (1) who holds the ultimate responsibility for transmittal of the record under MD Rule 7-206? (2) did a law enforcement officer substantially comply with MD. Rule 7-206 when the delay in transmittal was at least in part due to the law enforcement agency’s actions or inactions which resulted in one day beyond the time limits as prescribed by MD. Rule 7-206(c)?
(3) did the respondent deny a police officer’s right under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR) when it refused to place the police officer on active duty or suspended with pay status before it scheduled a trial board hearing? |
| 12-05-11 |
No. 47 |
Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Anand M. Dhanda
Issues - Statutory - (1) where a contract specifically requires that the parties submit to non-binding arbitration & states that the parties may “go to court if not satisfied by the decision of the MD Uniform Arbitration Act,” does the cause of action accrue at the time of the breach or at the time of the non-binding arbitration? (2) when the parties agree not to “go to court” until after a non-binding arbitration does the statute of limitations begin to run at the time of the breach or at the time a party can “go to court?” |
| 12-05-11 |
No. 54 |
Leon Dulyx a/k/a Leon Duylx v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) did the lower court err when it held that petitioner’s motive to examine the sole eyewitness against him at the suppression hearing concerning police conduct during a photographic array identification was substantially similar to petitioner’s motive to do so at trial? (2) did the lower court err when it held that petitioner was given a “full and fair opportunity” to cross-examine the witness despite the substantial limitations placed on petitioner’s ability to question him? |
| 12-05-11 |
No. 55 |
Bonnie L. Maddox v. Edward C. Cohn, et al.
Issues - Foreclosure - (1) may a substitute trustee under a deed of trust filed for foreclosure require that in order to bid on the property at the sale, the successful bidder agree to pay to the substitute trustee’s attorney a stipulated fee ostensibly for review of the settlement documents? (2) can a foreclosure sale be “properly made” if the substitute trustee imposes an improper condition on the successful bidder? (3) is the burden of proof on the defendant/mortgagor to prove that prospective bidders were discouraged from attending the sale in order to establish that the sale was not “fairly & properly” made? (4) is the burden of proof different when a substitute trustee fails to comply with the rules of procedure governing foreclosure sales as opposed to when someone imposes requirements or conditions which are not authorized by the rules & which are improper? |
| 12-02-11 |
No. 48 |
Tonto Corbin v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) does a DWI Probationer who had previously declined police requests to seize & test his DNA, voluntarily surrender his breath for DNA testing where state officers seize his DNA on the false pretense of seizing & testing only his blood alcohol? (2) was the evidence of petitioner’s criminal agency legally insufficient because the state failed to establish that it was any stronger than evidence implicating two or three other suspects? |
| 12-02-11 |
No. 50 |
Markino Little v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - in a prosecution for possession of burglar’s tools, does the law require that the alleged burglar’s tool facilitate the actual breaking & entering of a motor vehicle and therefore gloves & flashlight are within the scope of the statute? |
| 12-02-11 |
No. 44 |
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Dana Eric Carpenter
Issue - Transportation - is a police officer’s testimony that a subject had been driving a vehicle involved in a collision based on the officer’s post-crash investigation that included witness statements that the detained suspect had been “traveling at a high rate of speed” & “had struck the car,” sufficient to establish reasonable grounds to request an alcohol content test under Sec. 16-205.1(b)(2) of the Transportation Article? |
| 12-02-11 |
No. 45 |
Ricky Shamar Washington v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - was it an abuse of discretion & error to refuse to ask whether any prospective juror would be more likely to believe a witness solely by virtue of the witness having served in the military or being employed by the military? |
| 12-01-11 |
Bar Admissions |
|
| 12-01-11 |
No. 60 |
People’s Insurance Counsel Division v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al.
Issues - Insurance - (1) did the lower court err in concluding that Ins. Sec. 27-501(a)(2) has no applicability to an insurer’s decision not to provide homeowner’s insurance to a particular geographical area in the state? (2) did the lower courts correctly conclude based on established principles of administrative law & judicial review that substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s final order? |
| 12-01-11 |
No. 42 |
University of Maryland Medical System Corporation v. Giuseppina Muti, Personal Representative of the Estate of Elliott Muti, et al.
Issue - Tort Law - whether the failure to name all wrongful death beneficiaries as either plaintiffs or use plaintiffs within three years of the date of the decedent’s death require dismissal of the wrongful death claim without leave to amend? |
| 12-01-11 |
No. 117 (2010 Term) |
Anthony Grandison v. State of Maryland |
| 12-01-11 |
No. 43 |
Amy Mulligan v. William Corbett
Issue - should the paternity of a child conceived during a marriage but born after divorce be determined under the Estates & Trusts Art. or the Family Law Art.? |
| November 2011 Schedule |
| Date |
Docket # |
Title |
| 11-08-11 |
AG 44 (2010 T.) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Anthony Maurice Harmon
|
| 11-08-11 |
No. 29 |
Pro-Football, Inc. t/a Washington Redskins, et al. v. Thomas J. Tupa, Jr.
Issues - Workers’ Compensation - (1) whether MD public policy invalidates an otherwise valid forum-selection provision in an employment contract that specifies the VA Workers’ Compensation Commission as the appropriate entity to resolve disputes related to workers’ compensation benefits? (2) whether a professional football player who only plays approximately 10 games each year in MD for a team based in VA can properly be considered a “covered employee” under the Act? (3) whether an injury that arises from participation in a professional sporting event constitutes an “accidental injury” under the Act? |
| 11-08-11 |
No. 36 |
Montgomery Preservation, Inc., et al. v. Montgomery County Planning Board of the Maryland-
National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al.
Issues - Zoning - (1) did the lower court err in affirming the trial court’s refusal to undertake judicial review of the Planning Board’s decision to determine if the Board’s action was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise deficient as a matter of law? (2) did the lower court err in ruling that Planning Board action in this case was a “recommendation” rather than an appealable final administrative agency’s decision? (3) did the lower court err in its determination that the petitioners proper recourse in this case was to appeal a decision of the district council? |
| 11-08-11 |
No. 34 |
Paul B. DeWolfe, in his official capacity as the Public Defender for the State of Maryland, et al.
v. Quinton Richmond, et al.
Issues -Criminal Law - (1) do indigent defendants have a right to counsel at initial bail hearings: (a) before District Court Commissioners under MD's Public Defender Act? (b) under the Sixth Amendment & Art. 21 of the Declaration of Rights? (c) under MD or federal guarantees of due process? (d) when commissioners impose bail ”preset” by the District Court in absentia? (2) did the trial court abuse its discretion by granting the class declaratory relief in accord with its findings that defendants are violating the class’s statutory & constitutional rights? (3) did the trial court err in issuing the declaration without in any way addressing remedy & how this undisputed funding shortfall might be practicably addressed? |
| 11-07-11 |
No. 33 |
Sam Nichols, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse W. Suiters v. Virginia Lee Suiters
Issues - Estates & Trusts - (1) did lower court err in its interpretation & application of Sec. 4-105 of the Estates & Trusts Art. when it refused to apply the statute to revoke benefits to the divorced spouse under the will which was executed prior to the divorce? (2) did the lower court err when it found that an exception to Sec. 4-105 applied where the trial court after hearing the evidence at trial concluded that the exception did not apply? (3) did the lower court err in finding that the decedent intended to benefit respondent when there was no evidence of the decedent’s intent at the time of the divorce & where the separation agreement did not address whether respondent would benefit under the Will if there was a subsequent divorce? (4) did the lower court err in making factual findings that were not made by the trial court & relying upon evidence not admitted before the trial court at the de novo hearing? |
| 11-07-11 |
No. 39 |
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, Verizon Maryland, Inc.
Issues - Statutory - (1) is the Commission’s Order 83137 supported by substantial evidence in the record? (2) is the Order affected by an error of law in that it orders Verizon to implement a new alternative form of regular (AFOR) that does not protect consumers by ensuring the quality, availability & reliability of telecommunications services through the State of Maryland? (3) is the order affected by an error of law in that in ordering Verizon to implement a new AFOR the commission made no finding that the new AFOR protects consumers by producing affordable & reasonably priced basic local exchange service? (4) is the order affected by an error of law in that it orders Verizon to implement a new AFOR that is not in the public interest? (5) is the order affected by an error of law in that it establishes a new balancing of the interest test by its approval of the AFOR? |
| 11-07-11 |
No. 37 |
Kimberly Jones v. State of Maryland, et al.
Issues - Torts - (1) is evidence that police officers committed intentional torts & constitutional violations coupled with testimony by the officers that their actions were in accordance with their training & evidence that the officers entered a citizen’s home without constitutionally sufficient justification sufficient to prove a claim of negligent training? (2) is expert testimony necessary for a plaintiff to meet her burden of proof on a claim of negligent training or supervision of police officers? (3) does the Public Duty Doctrine shield the state from a claim of negligence when its police officers commit intentional torts and/or constitutional violations? |
| 11-07-11 |
No. 132 (2010 T.) |
Nicole Pace, as Mother and Next Friend of Liana Pace v. State of Maryland
Issue - Constitutional Law - whether the trial court erred in granting state’s motion to dismiss finding that the state had no duty of care to petitioner rather than special or statutory duty to ensure her “individual” “special” dietary needs were met & to protect her from discrimination on the basis of either race or disability in the administration of the school lunch program? |
| 11-04-11 |
No. 24
The Court combined docket nos. 24, 25, 26 & 38 |
Michael T. Polek, et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.
Issues - Common Law - (1) does Sec. 12-405 of the MD Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (SMLL) limit lender compensation to only a single loan origination fee or may a lender collect any number of separately labeled closing fees, costs & charges as long as the total amount of such fees, costs & charges, loan origination & finder’s fees are less than 10% of the net proceeds of the loan? (2) is the SMLL violated when a lender fails to provide a borrower the disclosure required by MD. Code Ann., Com. Law Sec. 12-407.1? (3) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD. Code Ann., Com. Law Sec. 3-306 which provides that a person taking an instrument, other than a person having the rights of a holder-in–due-course is subject to a claim of a possessory or property right in the instrument or its proceeds? (4) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD Common Law? (5) does the 12-year statute of limitations apply to SMLL claims brought against assignees of second mortgages? |
| 11-04-11 |
No. 25 |
Richard S. Dinnis, et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Issues - Common Law - (1) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD. Code Ann., Com. Law Sec. 3-306? (2) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD Common Law? (3) does the 12-year statute of limitations apply to smll claims brought against assignees of second mortgage? (4) does an assignee’s refusal to provide a borrower with copy of the second mortgage loan file give rise to a cause of action under MD law? (5) is the SMLL violated when a lender fails to provide a borrower the disclosure required by MD. Code Ann., Com. Law Sec. 12-407.1? |
| 11-04-11 |
No. 26 |
John W. Kinsey, Jr., et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Issues - Common Law - (1) does Sec. 12-405 of the SMLL limit lender compensation to only a single loan origination fee or may a lender collect any number of separately labeled closing fees, costs & charges as long as the total amount of fees, costs & charges, loan origination & finder’s fees are less than 10% of the net proceeds of the loan? (2) is the SMLL violated when a lender fails to provide a borrower the disclosure required by MD Code Ann., Com. Law Sec. 12-407.1? (3) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD. Code Ann. Com. Law Sec. 3-306? (4) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD Common Law? (5) does the 12-year statute of limitations apply to smll claims brought against assignees of second mortgages? |
| 11-04-11 |
No. 38 |
Frank J. Schultz, Jr. v. Citimortgage, Inc.
Issues - Common Law - (1) is the SMLL violated when a lender fails to provide a borrower the disclosure required by MD. Code Ann., Com. Law Sec. 12-407.1? (2) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD. Code Ann., Com. Law Sec. 3-306 which provides that a person taking an instrument, other than a person having the rights of a holder-in-due-course, is subject to a claim of a possessory or property right in the instrument or its proceeds? (3) is an assignee of a second mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD Common Law? (4) does an assignee’s refusal to provide a borrower with copy of the second mortgage loan file give rise to a cause of action under MD law? |
| 11-03-11 |
Bar Admissions |
|
| 11-03-11 |
No. 30 |
Joanna Davis v. Michael A. Petito, Jr.
Issue - Family Law - in determining an award of costs & attorney’s fees in a custody case, Fam. Law. Art. Sec. 12-103(b)(2) of the MD Code requiring the courts to consider inter alia the financial status & needs of each party, was it appropriate for the lower court to consider the fact that the mother was represented pro bono & to disregard her day-to-day financial needs particularly as they relate to caring for the child? |
| 11-03-11 |
No. 22 |
Michael D. Washington a/k/a Michael D. Washington-Bey v. State of Maryland |
| 11-03-11 |
No. 32 |
Wanda T. King v. Comptroller of the Treasury
Issue - Tax Law - did the MD General Assembly in enacting TG 13-1104(c)(2)(i) intend for the statute of limitations to begin to run on MD refund claims on the date a taxpayer’s federal income tax liability is no longer subject to administrative appeal rather than the date that the IRS issues a report proposing adjustments to the taxpayer’s liability? |
| 11-03-11 |
No. 28 |
Calvin Montgomery Waker v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) where the general assembly reduces the penalty for an offense after a defendant committed the offense but before he is tried & sentenced & where the act is silent as to its application in such a situation, is the defendant subject to the harsher penalty in effect at the time of the offense or the reduced penalty in effect at the time of the trial & sentencing? (2) did petitioner fail to preserve his appellate claim regarding his conviction & sentence for felony theft where petitioner did not state a claim of sentence illegality? |
| 11-03-11 |
No. 35 |
John Burson, et al. v. David Simiard
Issues - Statutory Law - (1) was the lower court correct in holding that MD Rule 14-305(g) contemplates that when a foreclosure purchaser defaults the defaulting purchaser’s “risk & expense” attaches only to the one resale resulting from his or her default? (2) was the lower court correct in holding that a defaulting purchaser is only liable for the loss resulting from the original foreclosure sale & the first resale because he did not cause the second defaulting purchase to breach? |
| October 2011 Schedule |
| Date |
Docket # |
Title |
| 10-12-11 |
No. 10 |
Gary James Smith v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) is it reversible error for the state to hijack the defense theory of the case by requesting a voluntary intoxication jury instruction over the objection of the defendant that injects an inconsistent defense theory & thereby confuses the jury & deprives the defendant of a fair trial? (2) in a case where homicide versus suicide is the cornerstone issue, is it error for the court to admit prosecution evidence of the decedent’s “normal” state of mind but refuse to admit equally relevant defense evidence of the decedent’s “depressed” state of mind? (3) did the lower court improperly conflate its analysis of the merits of a discovery violation with harmless error in finding non reversible the introduction of expert rebuttal evidence? |
| 10-12-11 |
No. 16 |
Deane J. Allen, et al. v. Sharon J. Ritter, Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Harry Allen
Issues - Estates & Trusts - (1) does Estates & Trusts Sec. 9-111 entitle a personal representative to demand & receive a sweeping release from the petitioners before she pays over to them the sums of money the court had determined they were entitled to when it approved the first & final administration account? (2) did the orphans’ court have the authority to order the petitioners to sign a sweeping release of liability to the successor personal representative before they could secure payment of their respective shares of their father’s estate that had been directed by the orphans’ court when it approved the successor personal representative’s first & final administration account? |
| 10-12-11 |
No. 27 |
Joseph Mobuary v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - did the lower court commit reversible error in denying petitioner’s motion to reinstate his de novo appeals from district court convictions, where: (a) the court dismissed the appeals based merely on counsel’s assertion that a correctional officer said petitioner refused to be transported to court from the detention center? (b) defense counsel subsequently learned & informed the court that petitioner denied refusing to come to court & wanted to proceed with his appeals? (c) the court applied the wrong legal standard in ruling on petitioner’s motion to reinstate his appeals? |
| 10-12-11 |
No. 23 |
Donald Spangler, et al. v. Peggy McQuitty and Gary McQuitty, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Dylan McQuitty
Issues - Statutory Law - (1) whether a litigant is denied due process of law where a trial court denies a motion for new trial following this court’s substantive change of the common law of informed consent? (2) whether a trial court abuses its discretion by entering judgment in favor of the estate of a deceased plaintiff where an award for future medical care is included as one of the elements of damages in the judgment entry? (3) whether a settling defendant may increase the liability of a non-settling defendant by designating himself a non-joint tortfeasor? (4) whether a litigant can alter or change md’s law by contractual agreement & preclude a settling tortfeasor from being classified as a “joint tortfeasor” under the uniform contribution among joint tort-feasors act to the detriment of a non-settling tortfeasor who was nota party to the agreement? (5) whether post judgment interest should run from the last date final judgment is entered, where the original judgment was vacated due to the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict? |
| 10-11-11 |
AG 21 (2010 T.) |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alexander Nnanna Agiliga |
| 10-11-11 |
No. 15 |
Anthony A. Dzikowski v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) did trial court abuse its discretion in overruling petitioner’s exceptions to the State’s Bill of Particulars response? (2) did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying a new trial when the state refused to provide a proper response to petitioner’s bill of particulars & the trial court’s decision to permit the state to change its theory of reckless endangerment unfairly surprised petitioner & effectively foreclosed him from putting on a case? (3) did the trial court err in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss when the trial court’s decision to permit the state to change its theory of reckless endangerment rendered the indictment duplicitous? |
| 10-11-11 |
No. 17 |
Gregory Robinson v. Baltimore Police Department
Issue - Public Safety - under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, does the same one-year statute of limitations date which began when the initial incident came to the agency’s attention also apply to allegations of a false statement made during a subsequent internal investigation division interview? |
| 10-11-11 |
No. 20 |
Elroy Matthews, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law -whether a plea agreement conditioned on an agreed upon “capped” term of years results in an illegal sentence when trial court sentences the defendant to life but suspends a portion of the life sentence to make the non-suspended portion not exceed the agreed upon “cap”? |
| 10-11-11 |
No. 7 |
Maryland Insurance Commissioner v. Central Acceptance Corporation, et al.
Issues - Statutory - (1) did agency correctly determine that Sec. 23-304 of Insurance Art. prohibits (a) practice of front-loading the imposition of finance charges such that borrowers whose loan agreements terminate prior to end of the loan term pay finance charges in excess of 1.15% for each 30 days, and (b) practice of imposing finance charges even where the insurance policy never takes effect? (2) did the lower court err in expanding its “command influence” rule that if adopted as the law of MD, it could be read to prohibit an administrative agency from adjudicating a matter after it has issued a pre-hearing ex parte order in the matter? (3) did the lower court err in applying its “command influence” rule to a regulatory proceeding where all material facts were undisputed where the agency was deciding a pure question of law & where the agency’s legal ruling was subject to judicial review? (4) is the MIA Order contrary to law because it implements a change in generally applicable policy that may be implemented only through the adoption of regulations? (5) is the MIA Order contrary to law because the cease & desist order was issued without complying with the procedural requirements of Secs. 2-209 & 23-207 of the Ins. Art., the sections cited in the cease & desist order as the authority under which that order was issued? (6) is the MIA Order contrary to law because the MIA lacks the statutory authority to issue cease & desist orders against premium finance companies? |
| 10-07-11 |
AG 55 (2010 T.) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Aaron Gregory Seltzer |
| 10-07-11 |
No. 19 |
Barry K. Downey, et al. v. Nicholas Sharp
Issues - Statutory Law - (1) do the grounds listed in Sec. 3-224(b) of the Courts & Jud. Proc. Art. of the MD Code provide the exclusive basis upon which a court may vacate an arbitration award? (2) may a MD court vacate an arbitration award for “manifest disregard of the law” or only under the “completely irrational” standard? (3) where an arbitration hearing is not transcribed, may a MD court vacate an arbitration award denying an easement by necessity based upon factual findings absent from the arbitrator’s written opinion & separately made by a reviewing court? (4) did the lower court err when it vacated the arbitrator’s finding that respondent was not entitled to an easement by necessity across petitioner’s property? |
| 10-07-11 |
No. 14 |
State of Maryland v. Leon Thomas Coleman, Jr.
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) did the lower court err by suggesting a breach of contract may not give rise to a criminal action for theft; improperly substituting its judgment for that of the jury by failing to consider certain evidence & failing to view other evidence in the light most favorable to the state; and erroneously holding that an intent to commit theft by deception cannot be inferred based upon facts that occurred after the date defendant obtained or exerted unauthorized control over the property of the victim? (2) is a transfer of property from the victim to a party other than defendant a “transfer of interest or possession” within the meaning of the theft statute? (3) did the lower court erroneously hold the deposits on new homes act inapplicable where the land & new residential unit are not conveyed simultaneously? |
| 10-07-11 |
No. 18 |
Nicholas A. Piscatelli v. Van Smith, et al.
Issues - Constitutional Law - (1) did the lower court err in deciding that summary judgment was properly granted based upon the fair reporting privilege? (2) did the lower court err in deciding that summary judgment was properly granted based upon the fair comment & opinion privileges? |
| 10-06-11 |
Bar Admissions |
|
| 10-06-11 |
Misc. 3 |
In the Matter of the Application of Richard Jerome Thorne, Jr. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
| 10-06-11 |
No. 11 |
Daniel Genies v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) did the trial court err in failing to dismiss the charge of common law indecent exposure, where the statutory, specific intent crime preempted the field, with respect to indecent exposure by an inmate to a correctional officer? (2) was it error or an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for new trial without a hearing? |
| 10-06-11 |
No. 5 |
Michelle D’Aoust v. Cindy R. Diamond, Bruce D. Brown, Rosen Hoover, P.A. and Hickory Hills Condominium Association
Issues - (1) does the doctrine of “qualified immunity” shield trustees appointed to make a judicial sale from liability for (a) failing to provide property owner with a mandatory notice of time, place & terms of sale “to the last known address” of the record owner. (b) making a false affidavit that they had completed with the rule? (2) are the trustees entitled to “qualified immunity” where prior to a hearing on exceptions to foreclosure sale, trustees told the petitioner that the trustees were withdrawing objections to her exceptions & would advise the court that no hearing was required because exceptions should be sustained? (3) is the lower court correct in holding that trustees are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity for ministerial act of sending out a required notice because such act is a “nested” ministerial act, “necessary to carry out a broader discretionary authority vested by the court?” (4) is the lower court correct in holding “appellees are shielded from liability for constructive fraud as a matter of law” because of the doctrine of “qualified immunity?” (5) does the doctrine of qualified immunity protect foreclosure sale trustees who negligently deprive the property owner of a hearing on exceptions to the sale? (6) whether the lower court should have considered uncontradicted affidavits submitted by the defendants & should have reviewed the trial court’s order as the granting of a motion for summary judgment? |
| 10-06-11 |
No. 21 |
State of Maryland v. Tavon Armstrong
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) whether the trial court must notify a defendant of a jury communication on the record? (2) if not, how may an appellant claim & prove that trial court violated the notification provision? (3) whose burden is it to create a record of error and if established, demonstrate its potential harmlessness? |
| 10-06-11 |
No. 13 |
David Clickner, et ux. v. Magothy River Association, Inc., et al.
Issues - Real Property - (1) whether trial court erred in declaring the public has a prescriptive easement to use the beach on Dobbins Island for recreational purposes when the finding violates public policy, there was no evidence that use of property was adverse or exclusive, and extent of the use was not established? (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering removal of a portion of the fence on Dobbins Island that was installed above mean high tide to protect the appellants’ private property rights? |
| September 2011 Schedule |
| Date |
Docket # |
Title |
| 09-08-11 |
AG 28 (2010 T) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Brenda Carol Brisbon |
| 09-08-11 |
AG 10 (2010 T) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andre Levell Brady |
| 09-08-11 |
No. 4 |
Linda Freilich, et al. v. Upper Chesapeake Health Systems, Inc., et al.
Issue - Health Care - in a summary judgment proceeding is the presumption of Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) immunity rebutted upon the showing of material facts in dispute regarding the physician’s reporting of substandard medical care & attempts to improve the quality of care in the hospital system? |
| 09-08-11 |
No. 12 |
Megan Cathey v. Board of Review, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Issue - Statutory - Health - is a developmentally disabled individual eligible for services provided or funded by the DDA during the time she resides with her father in MD in accordance with a court order granting the father joint legal & residential custody, & directing that the individual alternate her time equally with each parent in successive two-week intervals? |
| 09-07-11 |
AG 69 (2010 T) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Spencer Dean Ault |
| 09-07-11 |
AG 34 (2010 T) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Timothy Shawn Gordon |
| 09-07-11 |
No. 6 |
Gerald Thomas Titus, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - was the evidence that petitioner gave a false name to a police officer during a traffic stop sufficient to convict him of obstructing or hindering a police officer in the performance of his duty? |
| 09-01-11 |
AG 66 (2010 T) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lucille Saundra White |
| 09-01-11 |
AG 23 (2010 T) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Peter Richard Maignan |
| 09-01-11 |
No. 2 |
Kenneth Gerald Stabb v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - did the trial court err in instructing the jury that there is no legal requirement that the state utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case? |
| 09-01-11 |
No. 8 |
Hosea Anderson, et ux. v. John S. Burson, et al.
Issues - Statutory - (1) did the lower court err in determining that the substitute trustees’ principal, Deutsche, was “a nonholder in possession of the note who had the rights of a holder,” where Deutsche filed a lost note affidavit in which Deutsche admitted that it did not possess the note at the time this case was filed? (2) did the lower court err in relying solely on the uniform commercial code to determine that the unendorsed note was properly transferred to Deutsche while disregarding contrary language in the pooling & servicing agreement which created & governs the securitized trust? (3) did the lower court err in determining ineffective an endorsement by the named payee after it had transferred the note? |
| 08-31-11 |
Bar Admissions |
|
| 08-31-11 |
Misc. 1 |
In the Matter of the Application of Karim Timothy Cheikh for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
| 08-31-11 |
AG 11 (2010 T) |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joel David Joseph |
| 08-31-11 |
No. 1 |
Charles Y. Kim v. Maryland State Board of Physicians
Issues - Administrative Law - (1) should the Board of Physicians (BOP) be permitted to use information obtained through the case resolution conference? (2) is completing a renewal application for a physician’s license acting “in the practice of medicine”? (3) should the BOP be permitted to charge & punish a physician for “willfully” making false representations when the physician did not understand the questions posed? |
| 08-31-11 |
No. 3 |
State of Maryland v. Bryan Sivells
Issues - Criminal Law - (1) whether the invited response doctrine permits the prosecutor to respond to a “direct & specific attack on a police officer witness’ veracity”? (2) did the lower court misinterpret the “opened door” doctrine, as this court has applied it to closing arguments by holding it inapplicable to statements found to be improper vouching? (3) did the lower court fail to adequately define the limits of appropriate closing argument by holding that the majority of defense counsel’s closing argument was proper in spite of counsel’s discussion of facts not in evidence & repeated assertions of his personal opinion of the police officers’ integrity & the strength of the state’s case? |
| 08-31-11 |
No. 9 |
Joel Pautsch v. Maryland Real Estate Commission
Issue - Administrative - did the MD Real Estate Commission act within its discretion when it revoked the petitioner’s real estate licenses based on his felony convictions for child sexual abuse, in accordance with the commission’s authority under Sec. 17-322(b)(24)(i) and (d) of the Business Occupations & Professions Article? |
|
