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).

Agnew v. State
Case No. 009, September Term 2018

Issues – Criminal Law –Was a recorded communication on a cell phone between Petitioner and an unidentified speaker intercepted in violation of the Md. Wiretap Statute and erroneously admitted at trial when there was no enumerated exception for its admissibility?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2701, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-07
Opinion Filed:
Ingram v. State
Case No. 004, September Term 2018

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does § 7-104 of the Criminal Law Article provide independent authority for a court to order restitution in a theft case or, alternatively, is a court’s authority to order restitution constrained by the restitution provisions in Title 11 of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Where a defendant is convicted of theft, may a sentencing court order the defendant to make restitution when neither the victim nor the State has requested restitution?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1689, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-12
Opinion Filed:
State v. Payton
Case No. 014, September Term 2018

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where Respondent made specific objections to reopening the State’s case for more fingerprint-expert testimony only on the grounds that the additional fingerprint testimony would be the last thing that the jury would hear and that it would be presented in isolation, were defense counsel’s claims that reopening would be “unfair” and “extremely prejudicial”  or the trial court’s statement that the reopening could “very well … be grounds for appeal” sufficient to preserve a judicial-partiality claim? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in reopening the State’s case sua sponte? 3) Where the reopening of the State’s case was based on the trial court’s incorrect assumption that there had been no testimony linking Respondent to the handprint, was any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative of the testimony of three prior witnesses linking Respondent to the handprint?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2115, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-12
Opinion Filed:
Ford v. State
Case No. 011, September Term 2018

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in allowing the State to introduce evidence of the victim’s character for peacefulness, in a homicide case, when, in his opening statement, the defendant clearly stated that the victim was the first aggressor and suggested that evidence would be introduced to prove it? 2) What is the correct standard for determining whether a defendant’s conduct is too ambiguous or equivocal to be admissible as evidence of “consciousness of guilt”? 3) Did the trial court err in allowing, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, the State’s witness to testify about Petitioner’s reaction to being told that he had to leave her home?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2193, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-13
Opinion Filed:
McDonell v. Harford Co. Housing Ag'y.
Case No. 016, September Term 2018

Issues – Administrative Law – 1) Did Respondent err in terminating a voucher without affording procedural due process guaranteed under federal and MD administrative common law? 2) Does a MD charge of second degree assault constitute “violent criminal activity” and grounds for voucher termination? 3) Did Respondent err in interpreting its policy to require notice within two weeks of an unplanned and unforeseen absence from the housing rented with the voucher? 4) Is breach of a financial obligation that had been cured adequate grounds for voucher termination? 5) Did Respondent err in failing to explicitly consider all relevant facts before voucher termination?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 794, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-03
Opinion Filed:
State v. Sewell
Case No. 020, September Term 2018

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court grant review to resolve a conflict among opinions in CSA by adopting a principle of narrow construction with respect to the marital communications privilege? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion by allowing the State to introduce text messages that Respondent sent to his wife’s cell phone?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2188, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-04
Opinion Filed:
Pacheco v. State
Case No. 017, September Term 2018

Issue – 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)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-09
Opinion Filed:
Small v. State
Case No. 019, September Term 2018

Issue – 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]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-10
Opinion Filed:
Price v. Murdy
Case No. 001 M, September Term 2018

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Whether the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Md. Code Ann. Com. Law § 12-302's licensing requirement is an "other specialty" subject to Maryland's twelve year limitations period under [CJP] 5-102(a)(6)?

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-06
Opinion Filed:
Baltimore City Detention Center v. Foy
Case No. 003, September Term 2018

Issue – Correctional Services – Where, due to an equipment malfunction, a correctional officer’s penalty-increase meeting with the appointing authority was not contemporaneously recorded, did CSA err in concluding that the recording failure was incurable, even though the Department otherwise complied with all of the statutory procedures for terminating a correctional officer for misconduct?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1472, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-07
Opinion Filed:
Owusu v. Motor Vehicle Admin.
Case No. 010, September Term 2018

Issues – Transportation – 1) Is it a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1 when, after reading the MVA’s DR-15 advice form, a police officer’s oral restatement of the penalties for failing and refusing a breath test omits the most severe mandatory penalty for refusal? 2) Is the DR-15 form’s failure to advise suspected drunk drivers of the length of time the ignition interlock would be required in the event of a refusal – one year – a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1?

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, No. 434655V

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-12
Opinion Filed:
Dept. of the Environment v. Carroll Co.
Case No. 005, September Term 2018

Issues – 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)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-12
Opinion Filed:
Williams v. State
Case No. 013, September Term 2018

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial where the court gave a pattern jury instruction and, after the jury rendered its verdict, the court, prosecution, and defense all acknowledged that the instruction erroneously omitted an element of the offense for which the defendant was convicted?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2592, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-03
Opinion Filed:
Town of Forest Heights v. M-NCPPC
Case No. 021, September Term 2018

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err when it invalidated two Resolutions of Petitioner that, collectively, annexed into the Town approximately 737 acres of land without the consent of the owners of 25% of the assessed value of the lands annexed by each Resolution, where all the annexed lands were tax-exempt, were unoccupied, and where, consistent with City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life, 21 Md.App. 396 (1974), the owners of the land were not required to provide their consents to the annexations? 2) Did the trial court err when it determined that a portion of the Town’s Annexation Plan violates Md. Code Local Government Article, § 4-104(b), and Land Use Article, § 17-303(a), and, as a result, ordered that the Town may not exercise law enforcement on any land owned by Respondent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2538, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-04
Opinion Filed:
WV DIA Westminster v. Westminster
Case No. 022, September Term 2018

Issues – Local Government – 1) When a local government conducts a quasi-judicial hearing and vote, can it prevent judicial review by recasting its ultimate written decision as legislative in nature? 2) Does the phrase “regardless of zonal classification” in Westminster Code § 164-133B permit use of zonal classification as a guideline? 3) Does Westminster Code §164-188J(1) permit the Council to rely on an informal trend that is not part of “the general plan, the City’s capital improvements program or other applicable City plans and policies”? 4) Is the proper remedy vacatur or outright reversal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2053, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-10
Opinion Filed:
State v. Young
Case No. 002, September Term 2018

Issue – Correctional Services – Where, due to an equipment malfunction, a correctional officer’s penalty-increase meeting with the appointing authority was not contemporaneously recorded, did CSA err in concluding that the recording failure was incurable, even though the Department otherwise complied with all of the statutory procedures for terminating a correctional officer for misconduct?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 928, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-06
Opinion Filed:
Rosales v. State
Case No. 006, September Term 2018

Issue – Criminal Law – Were the complainants prior convictions for committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity admissible for the purposes of impeachment under Md. Rules 5-609?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2659, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-07
Opinion Filed:
Cornish v. State
Case No. 012, September Term 2018

Issue – Criminal Law – Where a criminal defendant has satisfied all the pleading requirements entitling him to a hearing on his motion for a new trial pursuant to Md. Rule 4-331 (c) and (f) and the trial court summarily denies the motion without a hearing, does an appellate court err in affirming the trial court by ruling on the merits of the motion?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2369, Sept. Term, 2016

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-12
Opinion Filed:
Frederick Co. v. Dept. of the Environment
Case No. 007, September Term 2018

Issues – 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)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-13
Opinion Filed:
Cagle v. State
Case No. 015, September Term 2018

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Does a trial court err in precluding a criminal defendant from using trial testimony video in closing argument?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2329, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-03
Opinion Filed:
Kennedy Krieger Inst. v. Partlow
Case No. 082, September Term 2017

Torts – Did the CSA, relying on Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, 366 Md. 29 (2001), err in imposing a duty on Kennedy Krieger to an individual who was not enrolled in the research study at issue?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 0044, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-08
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
People's Counsel v. Public Service Comm'n
Case No. 015, September Term 2017

Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission make an error of law by failing to conclude that the premium that PHI’s shareholders received as a result of its acquisition by Exelon Corp. violated § 6-105 of the Public Utilities Article and the regulatory compact governing the obligations and rights of monopolistic utilities in that it harmed customers and was inconsistent with the public interest? 2) Does the Commission’s unexplained conclusion that allegations of harm to the distributed generation and renewable energy markets resulting from Exelon’s acquisition of PHI were “speculation” render the Commission’s decision to approve the acquisition arbitrary and capricious?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2547, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2017-10-10
Opinion Filed:
None at this time
Attorney Grievance v. Steinhorn
Case No. 015 AG, September Term 2017

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-09
Opinion Filed:
Jackson v. State
Case No. 078, September Term 2017

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that evidence had been properly authenticated, despite acknowledging that the evidence was not what its proponent claimed? 2) Can records of regularly conducted business activities be authenticated through inferences and “common knowledge,” even though Rule 5-902 requires “[t]estimony of authenticity”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1516, Sept. Term, 2016 (Unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-31
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-12
Bell & Bon Secours Hosp. v. Chance
Case No. 036, September Term 2017

Torts – In a wrongful death action based on a suicide, is a defendant psychiatrist who discharged the decedent instead of continuing his involuntary commitment entitled to civil immunity under Health-General Article § 10-618 and Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 440 Md. 573, 103 A.3d 658 (2014)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2259, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-01-05
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-12
Carter v. State
Case No. 054, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile homicide inmate have standing to challenge a life sentence he is presently serving based on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), on the theory that the sentence does not afford him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation and the sentencing judge did not comply with the process set forth by those cases to insure that such a sentence is only imposed on the rare incorrigible juvenile offender, and is such a challenge ripe for review? 2) Do life sentences imposed on juvenile offenders in Md. afford them a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation? 3) If so, did the sentencing judge consider the distinctive and mitigating aspects of youth in the manner required by Miller and Montgomery (and made retroactive by the latter) to ensure that such a sentence was imposed only on the rare incorrigible juvenile homicide offender?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1150, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-02-06
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Attorney Grievance v. Conwell
Case No. 022 AG, September Term 2017

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-10
Opinion Filed:
Sugarman v. Liles
Case No. 080, September Term 2017

Issues – Torts – 1) Respondent’s medical expert opined that lead exposure caused cognitive deficits in two distinct areas measured on neuropsychological evaluation. But she conceded that the epidemiological data she relied upon did not show a causal association between lead exposure and either metric. Did CSA err when it held that her opinion had a sufficient factual basis? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the expert had sufficient basis to opine that lead exposure caused Respondent to suffer IQ loss? 3) The damages experts’ opinions that Respondent, a high school graduate accepted to two four-year colleges and enrolled in one, has incurred millions of dollars in loss of earning capacity were based on assumptions not supported by the evidence. Did CSA err when it concluded that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the insufficient factual and methodological bases underlying the expert’s opinions went to the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1460, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-06-01
Opinion Filed:
State v. Clements
Case No. 057, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal? 2) Did the trial court err in considering, and granting, Respondent’s motion to set aside an “illegal” sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2607, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-02-06
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Attorney Grievance v. Paul
Case No. 004 AG, September Term 2017

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-03-05
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-22
Nichols v. State
Case No. 008, September Term 2017

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Can the law of the case doctrine bar a claim of an illegal sentence for failure to properly raise the issue on appeal, despite Maryland Rule 4-345’s provision that a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time?  2) Is Petitioner’s total sentence of 80 years of imprisonment, which was imposed at resentencing, an illegal increase from his previous total sentence of life with all but 50 years suspended?

Court of Special Appeals, No.1277 Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-06
Opinion Filed:
Tate v. State
Case No. 065, September Term 2017

Criminal Law – Was Petitioner’s guilty plea record sufficient to conclude he understood the nature and elements of first-degree murder, despite the fact that he was a minor with diminished mental capacity and no one addressed the nature and elements of the crime on the record?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2823, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-05
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-25
SVF Riva Annapolis v. Gilroy
Case No. 066, September Term 2017

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA usurp the role of the legislature when, under the guise of statutory construction, it remedied a purported defect in the “use and possession exception” (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-108(d)(2)(i)) to Md.’s statute of repose? 2) Did CSA errr in insisting on an expansive interpretation of § 5-108(d)(2)(i) that conflicts with this Court’s prior, narrowly-tailored interpretation? 3) Did CSA err in broadly interpreting one exception to Md.’s statute of repose, effectively nullifying the statute as set forth in § 5-108(a)? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant the respondents’ motions for summary judgment based upon § 5-108(d)(2)(i)? 5) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant respondents’ motions for summary judgment even though alternative grounds existed to affirm summary judgment solely based upon questions of law?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2610, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-06
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Attorney Grievance v. Jalloh
Case No. 002 AG, September Term 2017

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-10
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Blackstone v. Sharma
Case No. 040, September Term 2017

Blackstone v. Sharma; Shanahan v. Marvastian

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a mortgage foreclosure action, which is a purely in rem proceeding against the subject real property, a “consumer claim” for “money owed” under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”)? 2) Is filing a mortgage foreclosure action, which by statute is not “doing business in this State,” nevertheless “doing business as a collection agency in this State” under MCALA? 3) Is the CSA’s ruling in Finch v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 212 Md.App. 748 (2013) – i.e., that a judgment in favor of an unlicensed debt collection agency is void as opposed to voidable – applicable to mortgage foreclosure judgments?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1524, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2017-11-30
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
WSC/2005 v. Trio Ventures Assoc.
Case No. 075, September Term 2017

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does a trial court have the power under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act (“MUAA”) to vacate an arbitration award that is irrational or in manifest disregard of the law? 2) Is an arbitral award that excuses a non-breaching party from proving that a condition precedent would have been satisfied but for the breach a manifest disregard of Md. law or otherwise irrational because it (a) eliminates the requirement that plaintiffs must prove causation of their injury; (b) deprives the non-breaching party of the benefit of its bargain; and (c) penalizes the breaching party and forfeits valuable contract rights? 3) Does this Court’s decision in Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congregation, 352 Md. 31, 720 A.2d 912 (1998), entitle a party who is granted an arbitration award to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in court proceedings unsuccessfully pursued by the losing party, or does a trial court have the discretion to deny such an award as in any other case in which legal fees and costs are sought? 4) Is this case the appropriate vehicle for this Court to further explain a trial court’s review authority under the MUAA? 5) Should an arbitration award based on a legal interpretation of a contract be vacated by a legally different interpretation of the contract presented on appeal by the losing party?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 946, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Lamson v. Montgomery Co.
Case No. 067, September Term 2017

State Government – Did CSA err in ruling that a supervisor may maintain off-line records concerning employees under her supervision to shield them from production under the MPIA?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 892, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-07
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Reynolds v. State
Case No. 084, September Term 2017

Criminal Law – Was Petitioner denied due process when the trial court permitted the prosecutor to question him about “what he did not tell the police” about his alibi defense, even though the omissions were a result of Petitioner’s post-arrest, post-Miranda invocation of silence and were not inconsistencies with his trial testimony?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 182, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-08
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
O'Sullivan v. Altenburg
Case No. 045, September Term 2017

Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1613, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2017-11-30
Opinion Filed:
None at this time
Christian v. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Assoc.
Case No. 051, September Term 2017

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA apply the correct legal standard in affirming, in part the trial court’s prior determination that Petitioner did not have a good faith basis under Md. Rule 1-341 to bring a claim for fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and wrongful termination/constructive discharge where CSA viewed the record in the light most favorable to Respondent, ignored evidence and inferences that supported Petitioner’s good faith basis to bring those claims, and did not instruct the trial court to review on remand the entirety of information supporting Petitioner’s claims rather than solely the evidence admitted at trial? 2) Should this Court adopt the legal standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) in determining the movant’s burden of proof for establishing damages for a claimed violation of Md. Rule 1-341, namely that where a complaint contains both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, the movant may only recover attorney’s fees which would not have been incurred but for the frivolous claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 13, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-02-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-04-23
In re: Adoption/Guardianship of C.E.
Case No. 077, September Term 2017

Issues – 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, 2017 (pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-01
Bowie v. State
Case No. 055, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile nonhomicide inmate have standing to challenge his life sentence under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny? 2) Are life sentences for nonhomicide crimes committed by a child unconstitutional because Md. Law does not afford the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1906, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-02-06
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Reinstatement of Blair
Case No. 044 AG, September Term 2017

In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Walter Lloyd Blair to the Bar of Maryland

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-31
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-13
Kranz v. State
Case No. 063, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – Where the trial court had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s post-conviction petition and rendered a valid judgment from which Petitioner, while he was in custody, sought timely appellate review under MD Code Ann., Crim. Proc § 7-109, did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that it had been divested of appellate jurisdiction, after having granted Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal and appellate briefing was complete, because during the three-year long pendency of his application for leave to appeal Petitioner was no longer imprisoned or on parole or probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 785, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-03-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-21
Otto v. State
Case No. 060, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – On the question of applying the common law Rule of Completeness for single statements, did the lower courts err after Respondent submitted a paragraph-long snippet of a 13-page long jailhouse conversation as evidence of Petitioner’s consciousness of guilt when; (1) the trial court acknowledged there were “muddled” thoughts going to multiple motivations of Petitioner, yet refused to provide the jury any other context or part of the conversation due to Respondent’s objection, (2) the correct legal standard and presumption “universally conceded” under the common law is the rest of the conversation was out of fairness to be provided to the jury as requested by Petitioner, not the other way around, and (3) CSA acknowledges it may have disagreed with the narrow “subject” definition construed by the trial court, yet did not find any error in the trial court’s refusal to provide any part of the “remainder” to the jury?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2758, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-03-05
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-21
Attorney Grievance v. Powell
Case No. 009 AG, September Term 2017

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-06-01
Opinion Filed:
In re: J.C.N.
Case No. 073, September Term 2017

Health General – 1) Did CSA err when it found that Petitioner’s challenge to the involuntary admission was moot? 2) Did CSA err when it concluded that the hospital complied with the 10 day deadline for the involuntary admission hearing and that dismissal was inappropriate? 3) Did CSA err when it found substantial support in the record for the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Petitioner presented a danger to the life or safety of herself or others?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1021, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-10
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Donlon v. Montgomery Co. Public Schools
Case No. 068, September Term 2017

State Personnel & Pensions – 1) What is the relationship of county school employees to the state in the context of Md. whistleblower protection laws? 2) What distinctions matter in Md.’s application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 571, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-12
Attorney Grievance v. Thompson
Case No. 053 AG, September Term 2017

Attorney disciplinary matter

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-03
Opinion Filed:
Kopp v. Schrader
Case No. 072, September Term 2017

State Government – 1) Does the Governor have the power under the Md. Constitution to withdraw the nomination of a recess appointee before a Senate vote and then reappoint that nominee during the interim, thereby circumventing Senate confirmation or rejection? 2) Does the General Assembly have the power under the Md. Constitution to enact a budget restriction prohibiting the expenditure of funds to pay the salaries of cabinet secretaries whose recess appointments circumvented the Senate’s confirmation power? 3) Does the Treasurer have an obligation to decline to disburse salary funds where the disbursement would conflict with a budget restriction and there is thus no appropriation for the expenditure? 4) Does the State have sovereign immunity from any claims for retrospective back pay from the State Treasury?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1998, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-07
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-21
Washington Gas Light v. Public Service Commission
Case No. 081, September Term 2017

Public Utilities – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the legislative-intent provision of a statute “acts as a substantive restriction” of the statute’s unambiguous substantive terms? 2) Did the Commission err when it added a new eligibility requirement for infrastructure replacement projects that is not found in the substantive provisions of the STRIDE statute, Public Utilities Article §4-210?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 117, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-07
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Goldberg v. Neviaser
Case No. 047, September Term 2017

Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 238, Sept. Term, 2017 (Pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2017-11-30
Opinion Filed:
None at this time
Wheeler v. State
Case No. 050, September Term 2017

Criminal Law – 1) Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely and proper demand under Courts & Jud. Proc., §§ 10-1002 and 1003, for the presence of all persons in the chain of custody, is it legal error for the trial court to admit drug evidence where the State fails to call the “packaging” officer as a witness; or as CSA  held in this case, is the admission of drug evidence under such circumstances subject to review for abuse of discretion? 2) Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of the drug evidence in view of the lack of a proper chain of custody?

Court of Special Appeals (No. 1423, Sept. Term, 2016) [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-02-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-25
Armacost v. Davis
Case No. 069, September Term 2017

Issues – Torts – 1) In a medical negligence case, is it reversible and prejudicial error to instruct the jury using instructions that frame negligence in the context of a “reasonable person”? 2) When a trial court perceives that a civil jury is deadlocked on the third day of deliberations, may the court give a neutral and non-coercive modified Allen charge that neither invades the province of the jury nor favors either party? 3) Does an appellate court abuse its discretion when it reverses a trial court on grounds not raised at trial nor briefed by the appellant?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 822, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-09
Opinion Filed:
Fallin v. State
Case No. 079, September Term 2017

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a child sex abuse case, did the trial court err by allowing an expert witness in child abuse disclosure to opine that the alleged victim showed no “signs of fabrication or coaching” and that the expert had no concerns about fabrication in her pretrial interviews with her? 2) Did CSA incorrectly hold that its opinion in Yount v. State, 99 Md.App. 207 (1994) “narrow[ed]” this Court’s opinion in Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266 (1988), such that “it is clear that in certain scenarios, an expert witness may testify as to whether they believe one is fabricating or not”? 3) Was the trial court required to instruct jurors that the credibility of another witness is not a proper subject of expert testimony? 4) When the trial court allowed a non-licensed social services investigator to repeat what the alleged victim told her under the tender years exception to the hearsay rule, did CSA incorrectly hold that the error was harmless? 5) Did Petitioner fail to preserve his claim regarding the expert’s testimony where he did not make contemporaneous objections or request a continuing objection? 6) Did Petitioner fail to preserve or affirmatively waive any error in the trial court’s curative instruction where he suggested the language used by the court and, after the court gave the instruction and asked if it was satisfactory, he stated that it was?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1083, Sept. Term, 2016

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-06-01
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-12
McCullough v. State
Case No. 056, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the reasoning of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny apply to a 100-year sentence that is the aggregate of shorter sentences for multiple crimes committed during the same incident? 2) If so, did the 100-year sentence in this case afford the juvenile nonhomicide offender the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham? 3) May challenges to parole policies be raised as a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1081, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-02-06
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Lamone v. Lewin
Case No. 085, September Term 2017

Issue – Election Law – Did the trial court err in entering a preliminary injunction that requires Appellant to remove the name of a candidate from the ballot for the 2018 primary election, where the statutory deadlines have passed, laches bars the relief ordered, removal at this late date will disrupt the orderly process of the election and other, less disruptive, relief is available?

Court of Special Appeals, No. ____, Sept. Term, 2018 (pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-05-02
Attorney Grievance Comm'n. v. Clevenger
Case No. 064, September Term 2017

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court err in issuing a writ of mandamus directing Petitioner to investigate a complaint against three members of the Maryland Bar where exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters is vested in the Court of Appeals and Bar Counsel has discretion to determine whether an investigation is warranted? 2) Did the trial court err in vacating its prior order sealing the proceedings where Md. Rule 19-711 expressly provides that all attorney disciplinary complaints and investigations are confidential unless and until formal charges are brought against an attorney?  long pendency of his application for leave to appeal Petitioner was no longer imprisoned or on parole or probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No.     , September Term, 2017 (Pending)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-03-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-06-21
Attorney Grievance v. Shemenski
Case No. 023 AG, September Term 2017

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-09-06
Opinion Filed:
C&B Construction v. Dashiell
Case No. 076, September Term 2017

Real Property – 1) Does §9-204(a) of the Real Property Article, the Maryland Construction Trust Fund Statute, limit its application to projects covered by the Maryland Mechanics’ Lien law and Little Miller Act even though the plain language of the statute as a whole and §9-204(a) specifically contain no such limitation? 2) Did the trial court err in granting judgment to Respondents despite evidence showing that funds received by the general contractor were earmarked for payment to Petitioners?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1307, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-05
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
In re: Adoption/G'ship of H.W.
Case No. 070, September Term 2017

Family Law – 1) Did CSA improperly proscribe juvenile courts from considering factors critical to the determination of a child’s best interests when it held that, in determining whether to terminate parental rights, juvenile courts may not consider either the emotional effects of a change in custody upon the child or the stability and certainty of the child’s future? 2) In determining that it is in the child’s best interests to terminate the parental rights of an incarcerated parent whom the child has never met, did the juvenile court permissibly consider the following factors (1) the potential emotional effect on the child of a change of custody; (2) the instability and uncertainty of the child’s future in the custody of the parent; and (3) the stability and certainty of the child’s future in the custody of the prospective adoptive parents?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2719, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-06
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-16
Devincentz v. State
Case No. 074, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err by prohibiting a defense witness from testifying that the complainant was an untruthful person? 2) Did the trial court err by disallowing a defense witness’s testimony that during an argument he observed between the complainant and the Petitioner, the complainant threatened to get Petitioner in trouble? 3) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was required to make a formal proffer regarding the substance and relevance of the evidence at issue in order to preserve for appellate review claims (1) and (2) above, and that the exception to the proffer requirement did not apply, despite it being clear from the record what the testimony of the defense witness would have established if it had been admitted?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1297, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-09
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
State v. Brookman & Carnes
Case No. 029, September Term 2017

Criminal Procedure – 1) Do sanctions, imposed by a trial court in conjunction with participation in the problem-solving Drug Court programs in Respondents’ criminal cases, not constitute court action subject to appellate review where there is no finding of a violation of probation? 2) If properly before CSA for review, did the trial court properly impose the Drug Court menu sanctions provided for in Respondents’ cases for Respondents’ respective violations of the conditions of their Drug Court participation? 3) Is this controversy moot? 4) Does Rule 16-206(e) permit a drug court to impose a sanction involving the loss of a defendant’s liberty in violation of the drug court agreement? 5) Is a Drug Court sanction involving a loss of liberty imposed in violation of the protocols of Rule 16-206(e) and the drug court agreement a reviewable judgment pursuant to an application for leave to appeal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 182, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-01-05
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Burnside v. State
Case No. 071, September Term 2017

Criminal Law – 1) Where Petitioner was on trial for a felony drug offense and the theory of the defense was clear and consistent throughout the trial, did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to rule upon the admissibility for impeachment purposes of Petitioner’s prior felony drug conviction prior to Petitioner’s election of whether or not to testify? 2) Did CSA misapply the harmless error standard, as recently reiterated by this Court in Porter v. State, 455 Md. 220 (2017), in finding that the trial court’s error in permitting the impeachment of a defense witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? 3) Did CSA err in failing to find unpreserved Petitioner’s claim that the trial court erred in not ruling on the admissibility of his prior drug conviction before his election whether to testify?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2182, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-02
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-11
Givens v. State
Case No. 031, September Term 2017

DNA appeal.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-05-07
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-12
Attorney Grievance v. Ucheomumu
Case No. 058 AG, September Term 2016

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-10-04
Opinion Filed:
Attorney Grievance v. Lang & Falusi
Case No. 086 AG, September Term 2016

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
2018-04-09
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
Attorney Grievance v. Blair
Case No. 083 AG, September Term 2009

Attorney disciplinary matter.

Cert. Granted:
Oral Arguments:
0018-05-31
Please note: The webcast is available at our Webcast Archive page.
Opinion Filed:
2018-07-13