Court of Appeals Webcast Archive
Oral Arguments Archives
September Term 2014 Webcasts
September Term 2013 Webcasts
September Term 2012 Webcasts
September Term 2011 Webcasts
September Term 2010 Webcasts
September Term 2009 Webcasts
September Term 2008 Webcasts
September Term 2007 Webcasts
September Term 2006 Webcasts
|October 2015 Schedule|
|10-06-2015||No. 9||DeAndre Ricardo WIlliams v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did police violate Petitioner’s right to remain silent during a custodial interrogation when he said “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know, - “ to which the police responded “But you don’t have to say nothing” but continued with the interrogation? 2) Did the police interrupting Petitioner while he invoked his right to remain silent convert an unambiguous invocation into an ambiguous invocation? 3) Was Petitioner’s confession involuntary under Md. Common law because the police implied that Petitioner might see outside again if he confessed to a robbery gone bad instead of a premeditated murder? 4) Where the officers were still in the process of explaining Petitioner’s rights to him, did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was being interrogated for purposes of Miranda?
|10-06-2015||No. 18||Board of Education of Howard County v. Howard County Education Association - ESP, Inc.
Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Whether the Public Schools Labor Relations Board must apply the State Board of Education’s interpretation of statutes within its jurisdiction when exercising its authority to determine if a proposed subject of collective bargaining is illegal because it is precluded by statutory law? 2) Whether conflicting interpretations of the Education Article § 6-201(c)(1) and § 6-510(c)(1) can be reconciled?
|10-06-2015||No. 16||Corey Jones v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the doctrine of laches barred Petitioner from seeking coram nobis relief? 2) Was Petitioner’s guilty plea neither knowing nor voluntary, where he was told that he was pleading guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute but a guilty plea was entered to the crime of use of a minor for the purpose of distributing a controlled dangerous substance and where the colloquy was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner understood the nature of the crime?
|10-05-2015||No. 21||Matthew D. Meyer v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where (a) the defendant consents to the condition, or (b) the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch,” such as DUI? 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled?
|10-05-2015||No. 22||State of Maryland v. Helen C. Rivera
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense, such as DUI, subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch?” 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled to recognize the court’s broad authority in matters of sentencing and probation?
|10-05-2015||No. 10||State of Maryland, et al. v. Vadim Roshchin, et al.
Issue – Transportation Law – Does a law enforcement officer have the authority to arrest an individual based on probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a misdemeanor aviation offense in violation of Title 5 of the Transportation Article?
|10-05-2015||No. 13||The Brownstones at Park Potomac Homeowners Association v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association
Issue – Real Property – Whether the first trust lender who takes physical possession of a property subject to a homeowners’ declaration and bylaws is liable for homeowners’ dues?
|09-29-2015||AG No. 40 (2014 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Stephen Rand
|09-29-2015||AG No. 35 (2014 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Mitchell, Jr.
|09-29-2015||No. 12||George Cameron Seward v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a case of alleged innocence, where the State concedes the new alibi evidence is “material”, can an appellate court rest a decision to reverse the granting of a Writ of Actual Innocence on the belief that trial counsel failed to investigate the alibi, without considering the evidence regarding what counsel did to locate that evidence? 2) Does the State have the right to appeal a trial court decision granting a Writ of Actual Innocence under Md. Code, Criminal Procedure § 8-301 in light of this Court’s prior precedent in Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (2011) and the General Assembly’s decision not to put an appellate right into the statute? 3) Did CSA err in mischaracterizing the record evidence and factual findings by the trial court to the extent that CSA’s decision rests on a misunderstanding of the record?
|09-29-2015||No. 17||Timothy Everett Beall v. Connie Holloway-Johnson
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the “malice implicit” in Petitioner’s actions could support an award of punitive damages, contrary to the long-established law that actual, not implied, malice is needed for an award of punitive damages? 2) Did CSA improperly modify the established definition of the “intent” needed to support claims for battery and for a physical contact in violation of Article 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, when it determined that the evidence was sufficient to present the claims to the jury? 3) Did CSA improperly conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24 when the record was devoid of facts to show intent on the part of Petitioner to cause a collision? 4) Did CSA err by affirming the judgment as to negligence but remanding for further proceedings on the claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24, thus allowing the pursuit of multiple recoveries of compensatory damages for the single claim arising from the collision? 5) Did Petitioner waive the damages cap and judgment avoidance afforded by the Local Government Tort Claims Act, having failed to raise the defense until after trial and entry of judgment?
|09-28-2015||AG No. 58 (2014 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alexander Manjanja Chanthunya
|09-28-2015||No. 15||Kathleen Clough v. Mayor & Council of Hurlock
Issue – Labor & Employment – Does a town charter provision providing that key employees serve at the pleasure of the mayor prohibit the mayor from exercising his or her pleasure by offering a contract of employment to a key employee for a term of years in order to attract a qualified professional to serve in a rural area?
|09-28-2015||No. 11||Jacqueline Warner v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is it impossible, as a matter of law, for a person to be guilty of theft from a multiple-party bank account to which she is a party in the absence of any language in the account agreement restricting that party’s use of funds? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a misappropriation conviction where the state never proved and the court did not find that Petitioner was a fiduciary?
|September 2015 Schedule|
|09-10-2015||Misc. No. 20 (2014 T.)||Montgomery County, Maryland v. Jean K. Phillips, et al.
Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals. Question - Does the phrase "the total rate of tax that applies to a transfer subject to the agricultural land transfer tax" in § 13-407(a)(2) and (3) of the Tax-Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland include the "surcharge" imposed by § 13-303(d)?
|09-10-2015||No. 8||Lisy Corp v. McCormick & Co., Inc., et al.
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did this Court’s decision in Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471 (2012), deprive Petitioner of its previously-valid jury demand, even though the Duckett ruling was expressly limited to a case involving a Civil Non-Domestic Case Information Report (“CIR”) that had never been served on the opposing party and this Court expressly left open the question of whether the outcome would be different if the plaintiff had served the CIR, as Petitioner has done here? 2) Did Petitioner properly demand its constitutional right to a jury trial when the law at the time of filing its complaint recognized the validity of Petitioner having demanded a jury trial by checking the appropriate box in the CIR? 3) Did Petitioner ever voluntarily and intentionally relinquish its known constitutional right to a jury trial?
|09-10-2015||No. 7||Allstate Lien and Recovery Corporation, et al. v. Cedric Stansbury
Issue – Commercial Law – Did CSA misinterpret Commercial Law Article §§ 16-201 - 209 in their conclusion that a lien and recovery company hired to execute a garageman’s lien cannot include its lien enforcement costs and expenses for executing the lien as part of the amount necessary to redeem the vehicle?
|09-09-2015||AG No. 74 (2013 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Michael Stanalonis
|09-09-2015||No. 78 (2014 T.)||Joseph Simms v. State of Maryland
|09-09-2015||No. 79 (2014 T.)||Lauren McClanahan v. Washington County Department of Social Services
Issues – Family Law – 1) Does the CSA decision that a parent can be strictly liable for child abuse by mental injury by seeking medical help for her five year old based on the child’s disclosures and symptoms, absent any finding that the parent acted intentionally, recklessly, or in bad faith to cause injury, violated the Due Process Clause, Family Law Article §§ 5-701 et seq., and Taylor v. Harford County Department of Social Services, 384 Md. 213 (2004)? 2) Did Petitioner’s attorney waive Petitioner’s objections to the privileged testimony of a therapist by discussing the assertion of privilege by the child’s attorney in the collateral child custody proceeding? 3) Did the ALJ’s decision against Petitioner violate the immunity provisions of Family Law Article § 5-708 and Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-620?
|09-03-2015||AG No. 7 (2014 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patricia DuVall Storch
|09-03-2015||No. 6||Jakeem Roy v. Sandra B. Dackman, et al.
Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it found that a board-certified pediatrician was not qualified as an expert to address the nature and extent of Petitioner’s injuries from childhood lead exposure? 2) Did CSA utilize the incorrect standard of review when it ignored the initial finding that the pediatrician was qualified to offer medical causation opinions and then reviewed his qualifications de novo?
|09-03-2015||AG No. 28 (2014 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Matthew Richard Young
|09-03-2015||No. 5||Ruth Belche May, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Philip Royce May v. Air & Liquid Systems, Corp., etc., et al.
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by adopting a rule that any replacement of a component excuses the original manufacturer from any duty to warn without considering whether replacement of that component constituted a “substantial modification” of the condition of the product? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to the Petitioner to warn of exposure to asbestos dust created by maintenance of their pumps’ asbestos-containing parts because Petitioner could not establish that he was the first person to work on the pump after it was sold under the facts of this case where a) Respondents conceded they had a duty to warn the first worker who serviced the pump; b) the pumps were in an identical condition to their original sale when Petitioner worked on them; c) the pumps required asbestos-containing parts and the ordinary use of the pumps degraded these parts, mandating that they be replaced; d) warnings were possible and eventually given after Petitioner was no longer working with the pumps; and e) the risk was not only insurable but, in fact, insured? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to Petitioner when neither CSA nor the trial court performed a fact-specific duty analysis of the factors under Patton v. U.S. Rugby?
|09-03-2015||No. 3||Donald Richard Twigg v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When an appellate court holds that lesser included offenses should have been merged into the greater offense and it vacates the sentences that were merged for the lesser offenses, does the appellate court have the authority to vacate the sentence imposed for the greater offense and remand for re-sentencing for that offense where there has been no challenge on appeal to the legality of the conviction or sentence for the greater offense? 2) Did CSA have authority and/or discretion to remand this case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing after holding that several of Petitioner’s sentences should merge? 3) Is Petitioner’s concern that, on remand, his sentence may be illegally increased not ripe for review and without merit?
|09-02-2015||No. 1||Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association v. Prince George's County, Maryland on behalf of Prince George's County Police Department
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the arbitrator’s award in this case under the theory that the decision was contrary to an explicit public policy and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the employees’ Weingarten rights under the collective bargaining agreement was too expansive? 2) If CSA erred, did the arbitrator’s order of reinstatement and back pay as the remedy for the violation exceed his authority?
|09-02-2015||No. 2||Mario Sibug v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where a criminal defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial, must a court find that the defendant has regained competence before he or she can be tried? 2) Did the trial court err when it found Petitioner to be competent at sentencing without ordering a new competency evaluation or otherwise taking new evidence on the question of Petitioner’s competency?
|09-02-2015||No. 4||Tower Oaks Boulevard, LLC v. Brent W. Procida, et al., Substitute Trustees
Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Does a third party have standing to challenge a limited liability company’s authority to prosecute or defend against litigation? 2) Where a limited liability company’s operating agreement vests power to act for the company in two persons acting jointly, and one cannot or will not act, is the other acting individually authorized to act for the company? 3) Is CSA’s holding that an operating agreement’s provision authorizing its manager to execute and sign all documents in each member’s name does not allow the manager to amend the operating agreement itself inconsistent with the Limited Liability Act’s policy to give the maximum effect to the principles of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of operating agreements?