NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are taken up by the Court. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
024 | 2022 | Fooks | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-08-15 [PC Order] | Constitutional Law – 1) In view of existing Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent interim decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), what is the proper analytical framework to apply to constitutional challenges to Maryland’s firearms laws? 2) Did CSA fail to apply the proper analytical framework to the constitutional challenges in this case? 3) Is Md. Code § 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to this case? Court of Special Appeals, No. 269, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
035 | 2023 | Frederick | Balt. City Bd. of Elections | 2024-08-28 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-29 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. No. C-24-CV-24-001361, Circuit Court for Baltimore City | |
003 | 2024 | Ledford | Jenway Contracting | 2024-03-25 | 2024-09-05 [Oral Arguments] | Labor & Employment – Did ACM err by extending the exclusivity provision of § 9-509 of the Labor & Employment Article (workers’ compensation) to non-dependents? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1755, Sept. Term, 2022, [Opinion] | |
050 Misc. | 2023 | Application of O.A.S. for Admission to the Bar | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-09 [Oral Arguments] | In the Matter of the Application of O.A.S. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland | ||
014 | 2024 | Zukowski | Anne Arundel Cty. | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-01 [Oral Arguments] | 2025-04-24 [Opinion] | Workers’ Compensation – Did the General Assembly intend to offset compensation or benefits to be paid directly to claimants when it adopted Md. Code, Labor & Employment Art. § 9-610? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1121, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |
011 | 2024 | Walton | Premier Soccer Club | 2024-05-31 | 2024-10-02 [Oral Arguments] The oral arguments in this matter were held at Frederick Douglass High School, Northwestern Campus, in Baltimore, Maryland. | 2025-04-24 [Opinion] | Tort – Did ACM properly affirm the trial court’s ruling that a violation of Md. Code Health General Article § 14-501 (concussion policy and awareness) could not be the proximate cause of a concussion injury as a matter of law notwithstanding that the injured person was within the class of persons – youth athletes – that the statute was intended to protect and the injury was the type of injury the statue was designed to prevent? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1691, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |
019 | 2024 | Zimmerman | State | 2024-07-29 | 2024-11-07 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – Whether further appellate review lies in either the Supreme Court of Maryland or the Appellate Court of Maryland from a circuit court’s order revoking probation when the circuit court’s order was entered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the District Court of Maryland. No. C-10-CR-23-000824, Circuit Court for Frederick County | |
012 | 2024 | Mayor & City Cncl. Of Balt. | Wallace | 2024-05-31 | 2024-11-08 [Oral Arguments] | Natural Resources – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, Md. Code, Natural Resources § 5-1101, et seq., (“MRUS”) does not apply to paths in public parks, even where a local government has made the path available for recreational use? 2) Did ACM err when it held that Haley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269 (1956), applies to any path that may serve as a “public connector” between parts of the City, so that any such path in a public park is not subject to MRUS protections? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1644, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
013 | 2024 | Nguyen | State | 2024-06-17 | 2024-11-08 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Law – Petition: 1) Does Maryland common law impose on police officers a general “duty to protect,” a breach of which is enforceable in a criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment or other crimes of omission, and if so, is the duty triggered when one suspect assaults another suspect in an officer’s presence? 2) If Petitioner had a “duty to protect”, was the testimony of other officers that they would have separated or stood between the two suspects legally sufficient to prove that Petitioner, by taking neither action, grossly departed from the standard of conduct that a reasonable, similarly situated police officer would have observed? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1495, Sept. Term, 2022 | |
003 Misc. 004 Misc. | 2024 | Govt. Employees Ins. Co. | MAO-MSO Recovery | 2024-12-09 [Oral Arguments] | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Whether the assignment of the right to seek and receive unpaid reimbursement of payments for expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) (2018) pursuant to a contingency compensation arrangement/agreement is void as against public policy of Maryland, and if so, whether such an arrangement/agreement is unenforceable regardless of any choice of law provision contained in such an agreement. | ||
017 | 2024 | Petition of Featherfall Restoration | 2024-06-17 | 2024-12-09 [Oral Arguments] | Insurance Law – 1) Does the standard insurance policy clause prohibiting assignment of “this policy” absent insurer consent prohibit the insured from assigning a post-loss claim benefit under the policy without its consent? 2) Did the lower courts err in affording deference to and affirming the ruling of law by the Maryland Insurance Administration (“MIA”) that anti-assignment clauses in property insurance policies preclude post-loss assignments of claims, instead of following this Court’s precedents upholding post-loss claim assignments in the face of anti-assignment clauses? 3) Did the lower courts err in affirming the MIA’s decision that Petitioner, as an assignee of insurance benefits from the insurer, was not a “claimant” or “aggrieved” with standing to challenge the insurer’s unfair claims settlement practices with respect to the claim assigned? 4) Should the trial court have issued a declaratory judgment that the assignment of claim benefits at issue did not violate the contractual provision that “assignment of this policy will not be valid unless we give our written consent” instead of deferring to the agency’s interpretation of Maryland contract law? (Note: The SCM granted a writ of cert only as to Petitioner’s questions 2, 4, 5, and 6.) Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1313, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
021 | 2024 | Coyle | State | 2024-08-27 | 2024-12-09 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Law – 1) When the Office of the Public Defender appointed counsel to Petitioner and approved of assigned counsel’s determination that a petition for writ of certiorari should be filed, was Petitioner entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in filing such a petition? 2) Must prejudice be presumed when, due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner was denied his right to file a petition for writ of certiorari and did the post-conviction court err in holding that he must establish that the petition would have been granted? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1440, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) | |
020 | 2024 | Saunders | Gilman | 2024-08-12 | 2025-01-06 [Oral Arguments] | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did ACM err when it concluded that no exception to the final judgment rule applies and that it lacked appellate jurisdiction? 2) Does § 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings article permit an immediate appeal from an order finding adverse possession of real property before a final judgment has been entered? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 463, Sept. Term, 2022 (dismissed) | |
025 | 2024 | In the Matter of Lewis | 2024-09-20 | 2025-01-06 [Oral Arguments] | County Codes – 1) Did ACM err in its interpretation and application of § 5-403 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings (CJP) Article (immunities related to certain agricultural operations)? 2) Did ACM err in holding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Talbot County Agricultural Resolution Board’s decision finding that the long-term storage of materials on and application of materials to farmland is a generally accepted agricultural activity entitled to the rebuttable presumption of Talbot County Code Chapter 128 (the Right-to-Farm law) or CJP §5-403? 3) Did ACM err in applying Chapter 128 and CJP §5-403 when the court held the storage and application of materials did not substantially change the agricultural operation and did not amount to a waiver of protection under Chapter 128 and CJP §5-403? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 951, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | ||
022 | 2024 | Canton Harbor Healthcare Ctr. | Robinson | 2024-08-27 | 2025-01-07 [Oral Arguments] | Tort – 1) Can a registered nurse be a “qualified expert” to attest “that the departure from standards of care is the proximate cause of the alleged injury” as required by Courts & Judicial Proceedings §3-2A-04(b)(1)(i), even though offering a medical diagnosis is outside the authorized scope of nursing practice in Maryland? 2) Can a registered nurse opine whether physicians wrongfully failed to prescribe medicines or undertake appropriate treatment plans? 3) Did ACM improperly rely on Federal regulations regarding Medicare/Medicaid funding of nursing facilities in determining the qualifications of a registered nurse to give a medical causation opinion? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2169, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
024 | 2024 | Montague | State | 2024-09-20 | 2025-02-06 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – May a trial court deny a person’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to the Juvenile Restoration Act, § 8-110 of the Criminal Procedure Article, solely or primarily because he maintained his innocence? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 409, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | |
028 | 2024 | Trimble | State | 2024-10-25 | 2025-02-06 [Oral Arguments] | Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) In light of the General Assembly’s recognition of the mitigating features of youth when enacting the Juvenile Restoration Act, may a circuit court deciding a motion for sentence reduction under § 8-110 of the Criminal Procedure (CP) Article treat “the individual’s age at the time of the offense” as an aggravating factor because the movant was 17 years and approximately 8 months old at the time of the offense? 2) In light of the General Assembly’s intent that CP § 8-110 provide people who were minors at the time of a crime a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” did the Appellate Court err in holding that a defendant’s maturity and rehabilitation was not entitled to any greater weight than any of the other ten statutory factors? 3) Did the circuit court err in dismissing extensive evidence of rehabilitation because the petitioner was diagnosed with a psychological disorder? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1834, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
029 | 2024 | Md. Indoor Play | Snowden Investment | 2024-10-25 | 2025-02-06 [Oral Arguments] | Contract Law – 1) Did the ACM expand the right of first refusal by holding that a breach of the right can be established without proof that the buyer was ready, willing, and able to act on it. 2) Did the ACM create and apply a new measure of general damages for breach of contract by allowing the non-breaching party to recover damages measured by the “fair value” as determined years after the alleged breach occurred. Appellate Court of Maryland, Nos. 683 & 2307, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
023 AG | 2023 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Pisner | 2025-03-03 [Oral Arguments] | 2025-03-05 [PC Order] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | |
034 | 2024 | In the Matter of the Marriage of Houser | 2024-11-22 | 2025-03-03 [Oral Arguments] | Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err when it issued a child support order after the parties had voluntarily withdrawn child support as a justiciable issue, and the court did so over the objections of the parents who the court found to be fit and proper? 2) Did the trial court mis-apply the statute, or abuse its discretion, when the court ordered child support and arrears over the express objection of the parents who the court found to be fit and proper? 3) Did the trial court violate the parents’ constitutional rights when the court sua sponte, and without evidence, rejected their agreement regarding the financial support of their child when the parents were found to be fit and proper? 4) Does the Maryland child support statute permit parents to waive a party’s child support obligation, as part of a global settlement agreement, where the parties have shared physical custody, and their combined adjusted gross income exceeds the highest level of income set forth in the Maryland child support Guidelines? 5) Does the ACM’s decision have a chilling effect on parents’ rights to enter into agreements that they believe to be in their children’s best interest? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2220, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
021 Misc. | 2024 | Davis | State | 2025-03-03 [Oral Arguments] | Certified Question of Law from the Appellate Court of Maryland 1) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to file a motion for modification of sentence, must a defendant prove that he requested trial counsel to file the motion? 2) If not, should Maryland Courts adopt the framework established in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), which addressed an ineffective assistance claim based on the failure to file a notice of appeal, and apply that framework to a claim based on the failure to file a motion for modification? | ||
031 | 2024 | Cromartie | State | 2024-11-22 | 2025-03-04 [Oral Arguments] The oral arguments in this matter were held at the Robert E. Parilla Performing Arts Center at Montgomery College, Rockville, Maryland. | 2025-04-28 [Opinion] | Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Can prosecutors designate a law enforcement officer as the State’s “representative” under Rule 5-615(b)(2), and thereby exempt the officer from otherwise mandatory witness sequestration? 2) If there is an officer exemption under Rule 5-615(b)(2), is that exemption discretionary? 3) May a law enforcement officer designated as a party representative under Rule 5-615(b)(2) provide lay opinion testimony relying on knowledge gained by hearing other witnesses testify? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2139, Sept. Term, 2023 (pending) |
017 Misc. | 2024 | Martinez | Amazon.com Services | 2025-03-04 [Oral Arguments] The oral arguments in this matter were held at the Robert E. Parilla Performing Arts Center at Montgomery College, Rockville, Maryland. | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Does the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, as described in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) and Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014), apply to claims brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law? | ||
038 | 2024 | Cnty. Cncl. of Prince George's | Robin Dale Land | 2024-12-19 | 2024-04-04 [Oral Arguments] | Land Use – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the District Council’s adoption of Council Resolution (CR)-136-2021 approving the Countywide Sectional Map Amendment is not comprehensive rezoning when this Court in Prince George’s Cnty. Council v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George’s Cnty., 485 Md. 150 (2023), and the Maryland General Assembly, recognized that CR-136-2021 is comprehensive rezoning? 2) Did ACM err in its interpretation and application of Section 27-222 of the prior zoning ordinance (concerning sectional map amendments) and this Court’s precedent on the hallmarks of comprehensive rezoning when it held that the District Council’s adoption of CR-136-2021 is not a comprehensive rezoning? 3) Did ACM err when it failed to apply CR-136-2021, a change in law, as required by McHale v. DCW Dutchship Island, 415 Md. 145 (2010), when ACM previously held in Bazzarre v. County Council, 2017 WL 2334472 (May 30, 2017) that none of the property owners had vested or accrued substantive rights. 4) Was the District Council’s adoption of CR-11-2019 and CR-12-2019 approving the Subregion 5 and 6 Master Plans and Sectional Map Amendments, made within the legal boundaries of its plenary legislative powers? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1088, Sept. Term, 2024 [Opinion] | |
035 | 2024 | Adelakun | Adelakun | 2024-11-22 | 2024-04-04 [Oral Arguments] | 2025-04-08 [PC Order] | Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Is an order denying pendente lite child support and alimony appealable under § 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 33, Sept. Term, 2024 [Opinion] |
027 | 2024 | Hollabaugh | MRO Corporation | 2024-10-25 | 2024-04-07 [Oral Arguments] | Fees - 1) Whether under Maryland’s Confidentiality of Medical Records Act (CMRA), § 4-304 of the Health General Article, the ACM erred in holding that respondent is permitted to charge a “reasonable cost-based fee” for “retrieval and preparation” of requested medical records, when respondent had no medical records to retrieve, produce or copy? 2) May the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint be affirmed on the alternative ground that she lacks standing under the CMRA because any claim would have to belong to her attorneys who requested her records and were required to pay the allegedly unauthorized fee? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1049, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
033 | 2024 | Pattison | Pattison | 2024-11-22 | 2024-04-07 [Oral Arguments] | Family Law – Did the trial court err in holding that the Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement signed by both parties was valid and enforceable? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 110, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | |
039 | 2024 | Danshin | State | 2024-12-19 | 2024-04-08 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Law – Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to propound the pattern jury instruction on defense of others where Petitioner denied being the shooter but the record provided evidence of the Petitioner’s state of mind at the time of the shooting? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 918, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
032 | 2024 | Hare | David S. Brown Enterprises | 2024-11-22 | 2025-05-05 [Oral Arguments] | State Government – Where a tenant’s rent is subsidized by a housing voucher, does a landlord’s imposition of an income requirement that ignores the share of rent guaranteed by the voucher and has the effect of excluding voucher holders constitute source-of-income discrimination in violation of Md. Code Ann., State Government § 20-705? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 515, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | |
036 | 2024 | Shepperson | State | 2025-05-05 [Oral Arguments] | DNA appeal. | ||
045 | 2024 | Walters Art Gallery | Walters Workers United | 2025-01-27 | 2025-05-05 [Oral Arguments] | State Government – Is the Museum a “unit or instrumentality of the State or of a political subdivision” under the Maryland Public Information Act? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2070, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
042 | 2024 | Hyperheal Hyperbarics | Shapiro | 2025-01-27 | 2025-05-06 [Oral Arguments] | Corporations & Associations – Is an employee who committed wrongful acts solely in his capacity as an employee entitled to indemnification pursuant to § 2-418 of the Corporations & Associations Article when there is no nexus between the wrongful conduct and use of any corporate powers bestowed on him as an officer or director? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1843, Sept. Term, 2022 & No. 121, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | |
043 | 2024 | Copinol Restaurant | 26 N. Market, LLC | 2025-01-27 | 2025-05-06 [Oral Arguments] | Real Property – 1) Can a landlord unilaterally terminate a commercial lease/tenancy and evict a tenant pursuant to a Holding Over Complaint (§ 8-102 of the Real Property Article) when the written lease between the parties has not expired? 2) Can a landlord unilaterally terminate a commercial lease/tenancy and evict a tenant pursuant to a Holding Over Complaint based on an alleged “breach of lease” premised on the tenant briefly being late with rent payment when, prior to the time of the landlord initiating suit, the tenant had paid all rent due and owing in full? Circuit Court for Frederick County, No. C-10-CV-24-000038 | |
046 | 2024 | Sec'y, Dept of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. | Fenton | 2025-01-27 | 2025-05-06 [Oral Arguments] | Correctional Services – Did ACM err in holding that § 3-702(c) of the Correctional Services Article, which prohibits an inmate from earning diminution credits “while serving a sentence for” a third-degree sex offense involving a victim under 16 if the inmate “was previously convicted of” such an offense, applies only where the “previous[] convict[ion]” occurred before commission of the offense for which the inmate is “serving a sentence”? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 322, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | |
027 AG | 2023 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | King | 2025-06-05 | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
044 | 2024 | Williams | State | 2025-01-27 | 2025-06-05 | Criminal Law – 1) Does § 9-805(a) Criminal Law Article, which prohibits the “promot[ion]” of a criminal organization, require a specific intent to limit its scope to gang kingpins seeking to further one of the subtitle’s “underlying crimes” for the benefit of the organization? 2) Was there sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of violating § 9-805(a) where his act of “promotion” consisted of standing by a codefendant who spray painted a gang symbol on a public wall, which is not one of the subtitle’s “underlying crimes”? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2246, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
048 | 2024 | Bivens | Clark | 2025-05-05 | 2025-06-05 | Criminal Procedure – Did the lower court correctly conclude that, upon vacaturs of a defendant’s convictions, the Division of Correction must immediately execute any remaining valid sentence in the individual’s term of confinement, apply credit for time served under the vacated conviction, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Article § 6-218(d), and ensure that any new conviction imposed upon re-prosecution is treated as a new, separate judgment rather than a modification or replacement sentence? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1521, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | |
030 | 2024 | Yarborough | State | DNA appeal. | |||
001 | 2025 | Clarke | Gibson | 2025-02-21 | Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err in finding Petitioner’s lack of credibility was sufficient evidence for finding physical abuse when there was no other evidence of a physical assault? 2) Did the trial court err and violate Petitioner’s due process rights when the Petition for Protection failed to plead any form of physical assault or child abuse? 3) Did the trial court err when it scheduled the hearing in excess of seven days in the future without stating good cause on the record? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 143, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | ||
001 Misc. | 2025 | Express Scripts | Anne Arundel County | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1) Under Maryland’s common law, can the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance constitute an actionable public nuisance? 2) If so, what are the elements of such a public nuisance claim, and what types of potential relief can a local government plaintiff seek when asserting such a claim? | |||
002 | 2025 | Lyles | Santander Consumer | 2025-02-21 | Contracts – 1) Where a separate document is never made available to, shown to, or signed by a contracting party, but that separate document is incorporated by reference into the underlying contract, is a consumer bound by the terms of that separate document despite having no knowledge of or access to the terms in that separate document? 2) When a contract contains two distinct integration clauses – one defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the seller and the other defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the assignee – does the assignee obtain rights under the terms of the buyer/seller integration clause? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1459, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | ||
003 | 2025 | May. & City Cncl. of Balt. | Varghese | 2025-03-21 | Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err when it held that governmental immunity for negligent infrastructure design decisions can be overcome by prior notice to the government that the design decision created a danger? 2) Did ACM’s decision that Maryland courts can adjudicate what infrastructure designs local governments should use violate the prohibition against the judicial branch assuming any of the duties of the other branches found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 3) Did ACM err when it held that Petitioner enjoyed neither common law governmental immunity nor statutory immunity under the Maryland Recreational Use Statute (§§ 5-1101 through 5-1109 of the Natural Resources Article)? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 720, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
004 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1846, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |||
005 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1848, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |||
006 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court to conduct an individualized analysis when the undisputed record establishes as a matter of law that there is no particularized need to disclose Petitioners’ identities? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1849, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |||
007 | 2025 | In re: Criminal Investigation CID 18-2673 | 2025-03-21 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court for reconsideration rather than ordering that judgment be entered in Petitioner’s favor? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1847, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |||
008 | 2025 | Goodrich | State | 2025-03-21 | Constitutional Law – Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s request for self-representation in violation of his constitutional rights and Maryland Rule 4-215? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1050, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
009 | 2025 | Engage Armament | Montgomery County | 2025-03-21 | Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2319, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
010 | 2025 | Bowens | State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. | 2025-03-21 | Insurance Law – Does the “debt or damages claimed” against an underinsured motorist carrier include amounts paid by the tortfeasor’s liability carrier? Circuit Court for Prince George's County, No. C-16-CV-24-003510. | ||
011 | 2025 | Mayor & City Council of Baltimore Anne Arundel Cnty. City of Annapolis | B.P. P.L.C., et al. | 2025-04-24 | Torts – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do the U.S. Constitution and federal law preempt and preclude state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate? 2) Does Maryland law preclude nuisance claims based on injuries allegedly caused by the worldwide production, promotion, and sale of a lawful consumer product? 3) Does Maryland law preclude failure-to-warn claims premised on a duty to warn every person in the world whose use of a product may have contributed to a global phenomenon with effects that allegedly harmed the plaintiff? 4) Does Maryland law preclude trespass claims based on harms allegedly caused by global climate changes arising from the use of a product by billions of third parties around the world outside of producer’s control? From the cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for public and private nuisance? 2) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for strict liability and negligent failure to warn? 3) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for trespass. Appellate Court of Maryland, Nos. 1290, 2308, & 2309, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | ||
011 | 2025 | Comptroller | Potomac Edison | 2025-04-24 | Tax General – 1) Did ACM erroneously interpret § 11-201(b) of the Tax-General Article, which exempts “tangible personal property … used directly and predominantly in a production activity” from sales-and-use tax, to apply to the equipment that Respondent uses not to produce electricity but to transmit and deliver it from out-of-state generators to its Maryland consumers? 2) In applying ACM’s erroneous interpretation of § 11-201(b) of the Tax-General Article, did the Tax Court err in concluding that much of Respondent’s transmission and delivery equipment was used “directly and predominantly” – that is more than 50 percent – in a production activity, when Respondent’s expert testified that the equipment is used both to deliver and process electricity simultaneously and concurrently and that neither delivery nor processing predominates? 3) Did ACM err in concluding that § 13-508(a) of the Tax-General Article, which governs the time within which a taxpayer may seek a refund of tax paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller, supersedes the generally-applicable four-year limitations period in § 13-1104(g) and allows Respondent the refund of previously-paid sales-and-use-tax that was not paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller? 4) Did ACM err by compelling the State to pay interest on Respondent’s refund claim when the evidence showed that Respondent paid the tax because of an “accounting system irregularity”, a mistake not attributable to the State? Appellate Court of Maryland, Nos. 81, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] |