Cases Pending Before The Court of Appeals

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).

Click on the column title to sort by that column.

Case No. Year Petitioner Respondent Cert. Granted Oral Arguments Opinion Filed Issues
034
2018 Ademiluyi Egbuonu   2018-09-06
[Oral Arguments]
2018-09-06
[PC Order]
Election appeal.
 
005
2018 Dept. of Environment Carroll Co. 2018-03-06 2018-09-13
[Oral Arguments]
 

Environmental Law – 1) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 2) Has MDE unlawfully subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and by subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 3) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill its Permit obligations in part by using water quality trading as a compliance method? 4) Has MDE violated state law by incorporating and amending Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 1-406 through the Permit?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1095, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

007
2018 Frederick Co. Dept. of Environment 2018-03-06 2018-09-13
[Oral Arguments]
 

Environmental Law – 1) Has MDE exceeded its authority by imposing conditions in the Permit that exceed the “maximum extent practicable” standard mandated by the Clean Water Act? 2) Has MDE acted unlawfully by imposing requirements in the Permit that are impossible to achieve within the five-year permit term? 3) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 4) Has MDE improperly subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 5) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill a portion of its Permit obligations using water quality trading as a compliance method?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1202, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

017
2018 Pacheco State 2018-05-08 2018-10-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – In light of Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (2017), Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (2017), and Md. Code, Crim. Law § 5-601.1(a), does the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from a parked vehicle that contains a single occupant, plus the observation of suspected marijuana in an amount that is obviously less than ten grams, provide probable cause to arrest the occupant?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 133, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

019
2018 Small State 2018-06-01 2018-10-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 916, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

036 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Johnson   2018-11-02
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
018
2018 Hyman State 2018-06-01 2018-11-02
[Oral Arguments]
2019-05-20
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that sexual offender registration is not a direct consequence of a third-degree sex offense? 2) Did CSA incorrectly assume that Petitioner understood the consequences of sexual offender registration despite never being advised? 3) Did CSA err by giving Petitioner an illegal sentence derived from an ambiguous plea agreement? 4) Where Petitioner filed a 2006 pro se coram nobis petition that did not include the claims raised in his 2013 petition, did CSA err when it found that Petitioner had not waived the 2013 claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2416, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

024
033
2018 State Thomas 2018-08-10 2018-11-29
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, may a seller of heroin be convicted of a murder-related offense where the buyer of the heroin dies after ingesting it? 2) Did CSA assume facts not in evidence and otherwise usurp the role of the fact-finder when it held that, as a matter of law, the State presented insufficient evidence of gross negligence and causation to sustain Respondent’s manslaughter conviction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1115, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

036
2018 State Heath 2018-09-14 2019-01-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does the introduction of evidence that opens the door to the admission of “other act” evidence operate to give the other act evidence “special relevance,” thereby relieving a party seeking to introduce the other act evidence of the burden to establish “special relevance” under Md. Rule 5-404 and State v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630 (1989)? 2) What is the correct standard of review? 3) Applying the appropriate standard of review, did CSA err first, by holding that counsel cannot open the door based upon comments made in an opening statement and second, by substituting its judgment for the trial court’s determination and making a factual finding about the intent and effect of Respondent’s counsel’s comment in opening statement and whether it opened the door to otherwise inadmissible “other act” evidence? 4) Did CSA err in concluding that admission of a comment in Respondent’s recorded statement was not harmless, where Petitioner made no further mention of the statement at trial?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2736, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

038
2018 D.L. Sheppard Pratt Health Sys. 2018-10-02 2019-01-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Health General – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that Petitioner’s challenge to her involuntary admission was moot and, alternatively, that no exception to the mootness doctrine applied? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that the applicability of the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine was not preserved for appellate review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2023, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

043
2018 Howell State 2018-10-09 2019-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Is duress a defense to constructive criminal contempt? 2) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioner failed to meet the “some evidence” requirement to generate the defense of duress?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 459, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

044
2018 Gallagher Mercy Medical Center 2018-10-09 2019-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
2019-04-29
[Opinion]

Torts – 1) Does the One Satisfaction Rule bar recovery in a lawsuit against a subsequent tortfeasor when no judgment was entered in a prior lawsuit and the prior lawsuit was resolved by settlement and a release that did not release claims against the subsequent tortfeasor? 2) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment and did CSA err in affirming the summary judgment because both courts failed to follow Maryland precedent regarding the One Satisfaction Rule and retarding the effect of release and settlement of claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 634, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

042 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Blatt   2019-01-31
[Oral Arguments]
2019-05-22
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
052
2018 State Jones 2018-11-07 2019-01-31
[Oral Arguments]

 

 

Criminal Law – 1) Should the accomplice corroboration rule that “a conviction may not rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice,” be revisited and either replaced or revised to allow the jury to measure the weight of the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, with appropriate instruction from the trial court to guide it in the consideration of accomplice testimony? 2) Was the testimony of Respondent’s co-conspirators sufficiently corroborated, and, therefore, the evidence sufficient to convict Respondent of conspiracy to commit armed carjacking?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1988, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

041
2018 In re: S.K.   2018-10-09 2019-02-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the juvenile court err in finding 16-year old S.K. involved in distributing child pornography as proscribed by Md. Crim. Law Art. §11-207(a), where she was both the sender and the only depicted minor, and where the act depicted was not in itself criminal? 2) Did the juvenile court properly find S.K. involved in the offense of displaying an obscene item to a minor despite the fact that, as the Court of Special Appeals held, the statute does not specifically state that it applies to “an electronically-transmitted digital video file”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 617, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

051
2018 Thornton State 2018-11-07 2019-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court properly deny the motion to suppress on the grounds that Petitioner’s attempted flight from a pat-down, which the motions judge believed was based on “very questionabl[e] reasonable suspicion,” attenuated the link between any unlawful police conduct and the discovery of a firearm on Petitioner’s person? 2) Where it was never suggested in the trial court or on appeal to CSA that Petitioner’s attempted flight constituted a new crime, did CSA err in concluding that the flight established probable cause to arrest Petitioner for fleeing and eluding under the Transportation Article? 3) If Petitioner’s attempted flight did not provide probable cause to arrest him for the offense of fleeing and eluding, to what extent may flight in and of itself constitute an intervening circumstance for purposes of the attenuation doctrine? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner’s attempted flight did establish probable cause to arrest him for fleeing and eluding, does the commission of any new crime attenuate the taint from an unlawful search or seizure, or only the commission of certain crimes? 5) Did CSA misapply the third factor of the attenuation doctrine (i.e., the purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1569, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

050
2018 Baltimore Cnty. Quinlan 2018-11-07 2019-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, given the lack of a clearly defined occupational disease as the basis for the claim and evidence that the conditions were shown to be prevalent in all occupations involving heavy physical labor not uniquely related to the work of a paramedic or EMT as an inherent and inseparable risk? 2) Did CSA err in finding that Respondent met the statutory requirements set forth in LE §9-502(d)(1) and that he had sufficiently established at trial that his condition resulted from an inherent hazard of his employment as a paramedic or EMT? 3) Should this Court review the decision below under the statutory requirements and existing case law, particularly Black and Decker Corporation v. Humbert, 189 Md.App. 171 (2009), which similarly ignores the legislative requirement that a disease is only occupational if it is “due to the nature of an employment in which the hazards of the occupational disease exist” (LE §9-502(d)(1)(i)), to provide clarification and guidance on the requirement for establishing a legally sufficient claim for occupational disease?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 319, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

053
2018 State Stewart 2018-11-07 2019-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) What is the proper analysis for determining when jury verdicts are legally inconsistent? 2) Where a verbal threat was the basis for the robbery and assault charges, but the jury was instructed that second-degree “intent to frighten” assault required a finding that Respondent committed an act with the intent to place [the] victim in fear of immediate physical harm,” did CSA err in holding that the verdicts of guilty of threat-of-force robbery and not guilty of assault were legally inconsistent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1291, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

006 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Singh   2019-02-28
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
060
2018 Dackman Robinson 2018-12-13 2019-02-28
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Did CSA, in upholding the admission of the testimony of an expert witness, fail to follow the appropriate standards elucidated in Lewin Realty III, Inc. v. Brooks (138 Md. App. 244 (2001) aff’d. 378 Md. 70 (2003)) and Sugarman v. Liles (460 Md. 396 (2018))? 2) Does it violate due process and fairness, and is it a miscarriage of justice, for a trial judge to sua sponte amend the scheduling order solely to the benefit of one party, and extend that party’s expert designation deadline by over a year, while simultaneously denying Petitioner’s request to amend their own expert deadline, extend the discovery deadline, and postpone the trial to alleviate the prejudice?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2035, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

059
2018 Steele Diamond Farm Homes 2018-12-13 2019-02-28
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: This recording is in two parts. 

Part 1

Part 2
 

Corporations & Associations – 1) Was Petitioner’s defense to a suit for HOA dues, that she did not owe dues for the amounts of increases imposed without the supermajority required under the Declaration of Covenants, invalid due to ultra vires or laches? 2) Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion with an award of attorney fees against Petitioner, since Respondent submitted no affidavit, lost in district court, and the principal recovered was less than one third of the awarded attorney fees?

Circuit Court for Montgomery County,No. 9777D.

077
2017 In re: Adoption/G'ship of C.E.   2018-02-05 2019-03-01 (reargument)
[Oral Arguments]
 

2018-06-01
[Oral Arguments]

2018-12-03
[Order]
Motions for reconsideration have been granted in this matter. The original opinion has been withdrawn and supplemental briefing and reargument have been ordered.

Issues for reargument:
Family Law - Whether the parental rights of both parents must be terminated in order to grant guardianship under FL §§5-323(b) and 5-325(a)(1), whether the termination of the parental rights of only one parent is required. See FL §5-323(b), stating "a parent is unfit..." and FL §5-325(a)(1), stating "terminating a parent's duties..."

 

Family Law – 1) Does a CINA child have a protected interest in achieving a timely permanency plan of adoption that transcends his parents’ right to raise him, where the three (3) year old child has resided in the same relatives’ home since birth and where the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is “unachievable … in the foreseeable future”? 2) Is it an error of law for a court to change a CINA child’s permanency plan in guardianship proceeding conducted pursuant to Family Law §5-323? 3) Was the court’s application of its findings of exceptional circumstances to justify custody and guardianship to relatives instead of using the exceptional circumstances to support a grant of guardianship, an error of law in contravention of the statute’s clear preference for adoption over custody and guardianship? 4) Did the juvenile court err when it failed to find that the CINA child’s father was unfit to remain the child’s legal father in light of its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was no likelihood that father would ever be able to safely care for the child? 5) Did the juvenile court err as a matter of law in its exceptional circumstances analysis, by elevating an incidental “parental” relationship over the child’s best interests in achieving the permanence afforded by adoption?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1549, Sept. Term, 2016 (pending)

057
2018 MAS Associates Korotki 2018-12-13 2019-03-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Corporations & Associations – Did the trial court misinterpret and misapply the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, in conflict with the LLC Act, by creating a partnership among three non-member employees of a longstanding LLC after their attempts to negotiate an amendment to the LLC’s 2004 Operating Agreement with its members failed?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 228, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

001 JD
2018 In the Matter of Hon. Russell     2019-03-04
[Oral Arguments[
 

Judicial disabilities matter.

058
2018 Wallace & Gale Asbestos Trust Busch 2018-12-13 2019-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) May asbestos exposure to a specific defendant’s product be inferred from the defendant’s substantial presence in the facility? 2) Should juries be told that other defendants have been dismissed from the case when the complaints against them are admitted in evidence as admissions by the plaintiff?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1055, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

003 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Sanderson   2019-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
 
2019-04-05
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
063
2018 State Schlick 2019-01-07 2019-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Does a court lose revisory power over a criminal sentence “after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” as Maryland Rule 4-345(e) states, or does the court indefinitely retain “fundamental jurisdiction” to revise a sentence, which it is an abuse of discretion not to consider exercising, as CSA held below?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1376, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

067
2018 Gang Montgomery Co. 2019-02-04 2019-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Worker’s Compensation – 1) Does the language in Md. Code, Labor & Employment § 9-736(b) allow a revision of an Order within five years where both parties agree on the record that the prior order was a mistake regarding the prescribed rate of pay for a “public safety employee” and where this Court in Electrical General Corp. v. Labonte, 454 Md. 113 (2017), expressly held that the Commission has continuing powers and jurisdiction to modify prior findings or Orders?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 768, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

062
2018 Moser Heffington 2019-01-07 2019-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion to stay in a case where: A) Respondent initiated the civil action for defamation; B) during the pendency of the civil action, Respondent was criminally indicted for the conduct at issue in the civil suit, yet Respondent had fully participated in all aspects of discovery both prior to and after the indictment, which discovery included her own deposition; and C) on the eve of trial, and four months after the indictment, Respondent filed an 11th hour motion to stay the civil trial on the grounds that she intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify at the civil trial? 2) Did Respondent waive her Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil action by testifying at her deposition and providing other discovery responses without invoking the privilege, after she was on notice that the police were investigating her for the conduct at issue? 3) Given that Respondent had already answered questions at her deposition concerning the conduct at issue, did Respondent fail to preserve for review the denial of a stay of the civil action where she failed to proffer the questions as to which she intended to invoke her right to silence – which was necessary to determine if she could validly exercise the privilege or had waived it? 4) Did CSA unnecessarily decide a Constitutional question, i.e. whether the trial court had failed to fully consider Respondent’s Fifth Amendment right by not granting a stay of the civil action, after it learned that Respondent had been convicted of the very conduct that formed the basis of the alleged defamation, which rendered moot her defamation claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 922, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

068
2018 State Christian 2019-02-04 2019-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
2019-05-17
[Opinion]

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the post-conviction court and CSA err when each court declined to order a hearing to resolve serious and wide-spread concerns about the integrity of the transcripts in this case and in other criminal trials presided over by this trial court judge? 2) Did the post-conviction court err when it failed to consider whether Respondent was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to instructions that told the jurors that the court’s instructions were “binding” and that they “must apply” the law as the court explained and also told the jurors that they were the “judges of the law,” and did CSA err when it concluded that the instructions resulted in “structural error” and that, consequently, Respondent had satisfied his burden to show that but for counsel’s failure to object to the instructions, there was a substantial possibility that the outcome of his trial would have been different?

Court of Specual Appeals, No. 392, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

056
2018 Comptroller Taylor 2018-12-13 2019-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Taxation – 1) Is the value of a surviving spouse’s interest in a QTIP trust created in another state properly included in the surviving spouse’s Maryland estate, and therefore subject to the Maryland estate tax? 2) Did the Tax Court improperly waive a late-filing penalty when waiver must be supported by “affirmative evidence” and the only basis cited for the waiver was the personal representative’s erroneous interpretation of the tax laws? 3) Is Petitioner’s taxation of the QTIP trust in the estate unconstitutional? 4) Is the fact that an issue was raised before the Tax Court, but not expressly decided by that agency, sufficient to permit review of that issue on appeal from the agency ruling?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2198, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

065
2018 State Brown 2019-02-04 2019-04-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does an announced sentence that is anomalous in context qualify as an “evident mistake” that is subject to correction under Maryland Rule 4-345(c)? 2) Can statements regarding the defendant’s aggregate sentence, serve under Maryland Rule 4-345(c), to “correct” a mistake in the announcement of a sentence on an individual count?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1581, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

069
2018 Conaway State 2019-02-04 2019-04-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – In light of the language of the Justice Reinvestment Act (Md. Code, Crim. Proc. Art. §§ 6-223(e)(4) & 6-224(c)(2)(iv)), may a defendant obtain appellate review of a finding or decision imposing incarceration for a technical violation of probation by filing a notice of appeal, or is an application for leave to appeal required?

Court of Specual Appeals, No 183, Sept. Term, 2018 (Application for leave to appeal denied)

027 Misc.
2018 Application of Knight     2019-04-09
[Oral Arguments]
 
 

Bar admissions matter.

066
2018 Washington Cnty. Perennial Solar 2019-02-04 2019-05-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Public Utilities – Is local zoning authority preempted by state law with respect to the approval and location of Solar Energy Generating Systems such as the one at issue in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1022, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

073
2018 State Thomas 2019-03-05 2019-05-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – As a matter of first impression, is a sentence imposed on remand legal if the new sentence imposes the same or fewer years of imprisonment but results in a later parole eligibility date than the original sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1416, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

070
2018 Wireless One Baltimore City 2019-02-04 2019-05-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Real Property – 1) Under Real Property Article § 12-201(e)(1)(i)(2), is a person who leaves a publicly funded facility as a result of demolition or rehabilitation excluded from relocation benefits if it leased after the unit of government acquired title to the real property? 2) Has Petitioner stated a claim for an unconstitutional taking?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1852, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

076
2018 Johnson State 2019-03-05 2019-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland Code Ann., Criminal Procedure, § 6-223(e)(4), which provides that a “finding under paragraph (2) of this subsection … is subject to appeal under Title 12, Subtitle 3 or Subtitle 4 of the Courts Article,” give a right of appeal to a probationer or defendant who receives and enhanced sentence based on a finding under paragraph (2) of § 6-223(e)? 2) Was the evidence presented at the hearing sufficient to rebut the presumption established by paragraph (1) of Crim. Proc. § 6-223(e), after consideration of the factors set forth in paragraph (2)? 3) Did the trial court err when it sentenced Petitioner to life in prison, suspending all but forty-six years with credit for time served, for his first technical violation of probation, without following necessary procedures, including compliance with Crim. Proc. § 6-223(d)(3)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 51, Sept. Term, 2018 (dismissed)

077
2018 Bailey State 2019-03-05 2019-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court did not illegally impose an enhanced sentence after the State failed to serve timely notice under Md. Rule 4-245(b)? 2) If Petitioner’s sentence was not illegal, did CSA misapply the test for determining whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2503, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

074
2018 Junek Dept. Of Social Services 2019-03-05 2019-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Family Law – Is intent or scienter an element of child neglect under Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 5-701(s)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2038, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)

005 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Kane   2019-06-06   Attorney disciplinary matter.
075
2018 Grant Prince George's Cnty. 2019-03-05 2019-06-06  

Administrative Law – 1) Does Maryland administrative law authorize a zoning tribunal to vote to approve a special exception without deliberating on the factual issues and then delegate to its staff attorney the authority to make the required factual findings without informing the staff attorney of the factual basis of the tribunal’s decision? 2) If CSA is correct that the District Council’s staff “attorney prepared a draft opinion and showed it separately to individual members of the District Council” before the meeting, is such a process an “evasive device” which violates the Open Meeting Act? 3) Did the District Council err by exercising original jurisdiction when it reversed the Zoning Hearing Examiner’s decision?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 809, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

064
2018 Stracke Estate of Butler 2019-02-04 2019-06-07  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does willful or gross negligence by an omission defeat the immunity from liability granted to fire and rescue personnel by the Maryland Fire and Rescue Company Act, Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 5-604, or is the immunity lost only by a willful or grossly negligent affirmative act? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence that Petitioners committed gross negligence that caused the death of a patient, when undisputed evidence established that Petitioners assessed the patient, including taking vital signs, and within seven minutes transported the patient to the hospital, where his condition suddenly worsened? 3) Does § 5-604 afford Petitioners, as employees of a fire department, limited immunity against claims for simple negligence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 238, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

072
2018 Ramirez State 2019-02-22 2019-06-07  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it held that a structural error did not occur when a biased juror was not stricken from the jury by trial counsel? 2) Did CSA err when it held that even if a structural error occurred Petitioner was not prejudiced? 3) Was Petitioner denied effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 4) Did CSA err when, as support for its decision, it used the number of prospective jurors in St. Mary’s County when trial in this case was held in Carroll County?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2342, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

078
2018 Heidenberg Grier 2019-03-05 2019-06-07  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Dawkins v. Balt. City Police Department, 376 Md. 53 (2003), preclude a parent immediate appellate review from the rejection of the doctrine of parent-child immunity? 2) Does the doctrine of parent-child immunity survive the death of a child?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2400, Sept. Term, 2018 (dismissed)

026 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Kaufman   2019-09-05   Attorney disciplinary matter.
001
2019 State Alexander 2019-03-29 2019-09-05  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does section 6-233(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article, which allows a trial court to terminate a probation, permit that court to dismiss a violation of probation (“VOP”) petition filed by the State simply because the violation alleged is technical and the probationer served the equivalent of the presumptive penalty in custody awaiting the hearing on the VOP petition? 2) In any event, where the record shows that the trial court was mistaken in concluding that Respondent’s probation had expired, did the trial court err in closing the probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2069, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

003
2019 Goshen Run Homeowners Ass'n Cisneros 2019-04-10 2019-09-05  

Commercial Law – 1) Does a confessed judgment clause in a promissory note/forbearance agreement involving homeowners association assessments that expressly preserves the right of the defendant to assert legal defenses, violate the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”)? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that homeowners association assessments are consumer debts within the meaning of the CPA, if the consideration given by a payee to a promisor in a promissory note is the forbearance of debt collection activity on the antecedent debt, does such a promissory note relate to a “consumer transaction” under the CPA? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the answer to the first question is affirmative, was it appropriate for the district court to invoke a severability provision in the note, sever the confession clause, and proceed to a trial on the merits, because the CPA does not provide the remedy of voiding contracts? 4) Did the circuit court misapply Maryland law when it determined that after a confessed judgment is vacated, it is impermissible to permit a trial on the merits on an amended complaint, as that would constitute “another bite at the apple,” and that such complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 3-611(b)?

No. 9842D, Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

001 M
2019 Application of Foster     2019-09-06   In the Matter of the Application of Gregory Leon Foster, Jr., for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
006
2019 Sabisch Moyer 2019-04-10 2019-09-06  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, while on probation before judgment and required as conditions of his probation to obey all laws, to have no contact with the victim, to have no unsupervised contact with children under age eighteen, to provide his current address to probation authorities, to register as a sex offender, and to report by telephone to his probation supervisor in Maryland every thirty days while residing in Michigan and to follow his supervisor’s lawful instructions, was not entitled to petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc, § 3-702, because he was not subject to “physical” restraint? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, while on probation before judgment, was not entitled to petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 3-702, because he was not present in Maryland at the time of the filing of his petition and because the conditions of Petitioner’s probation did not create a sufficient “presence” in Maryland while Petitioner was residing in Michigan? 3) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on grounds that Petitioner accepted probation before judgment and waived his right to appeal pursuant to § 6-220?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1858, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

007
2019 Greene State 2019-04-10 2019-09-06  

Criminal Law – 1) In a case of first impression, did CSA err in holding that Maryland adopts the “confirmatory identification” line of out-of-state cases that exempt from pre-trial constitutional review of “non-selective” identifications? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s suppression of the identification of Petitioner, where police procedures used to obtain the identification violate due process? 3) Did CSA err in alternatively holding that the trial court failed to examine the appropriate factors in ruling the identification was inadmissible?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2199, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]

021 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Ambe   2019-09-09   Attorney disciplinary matter.
008
2019 Trotman State 2019-04-10 2019-09-09  

Criminal Law – As an issue of first impression, may a judge who retired in 2014, over defense objection, excuse for cause multiple veniremen who claim to be unable to climb 25 stairs, while refusing to consider possible accommodations for dealing with the veniremen’s disabilities or health problems, in a circuit court that has 35 judges and comprises two large courthouses?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2331, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

005
2019 Andrews & Lawrence Prof. Servs. Mills 2019-04-10 2019-09-09  

Commercial Law – The Maryland Consumer Protection Act “does not apply to” the “professional services” of a lawyer. In view of this exemption, can an attorney’s client be deemed to have violated the Act, or otherwise be subject to a claim for damages, based solely on the conduct of its attorney that, absent the attorney’s exemption, would, arguendo, constitute a violation of the Act?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1460, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

030 Misc.
2018 Brown, Bottini & Wilson State   2019-09-10   Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Does the authority granted to the courts by Criminal Law Article § 5-609.1 to modify mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related offenses extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements and the State does not consent to modification? 2) Does the authority granted to the Courts by § 5-609.1 to modify such sentences extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements in which the defendant waived his or her right to seek a modification of sentence? 3) Does § 5-609.1 require the circuit court to hold a hearing before granting or denying a motion to modify a sentence filed pursuant to the statute? 4) When does the Court of Special Appeals have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order denying a § 5-609.1 motion to modify a sentence?
002
2019 Telos Corp. Hamot 2019-03-29 2019-09-10  

Torts – 1) Does Maryland law apply “more relaxed standards of proof with regard to the proof of the amount of damages,”in intentional interference cases, in order that the “wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created”? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to apply those “relaxed standards of proof” when considering the evidence of Petitioner’s damages resulting from Respondents’ intentional interference with Petitioner’s contract with its auditor?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1660, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

009
2019 Johnson State 2019-04-22 2019-09-10  

Criminal Law – 1) Section 5-612 of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits possession of certain quantities of controlled dangerous substances, provides that “[a] person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and is subject to a fine not exceeding $100,000.” What is the maximum allowable period of incarceration for a violation of this law? 2) Did the circuit court impose an illegal sentence of fourteen years of incarceration for a violation of section 5-612 of the Criminal Law Article?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1718, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]