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]
2019-08-06
[Opinion]

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]
2019-08-06
[Opinion]

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]
2019-08-12
[Opinion]

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)

038
2018 D.L. Sheppard Pratt Health Sys. 2018-10-02 2019-01-04
[Oral Arguments]
2019-08-13
[Opinion]

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]

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]
2019-08-06
[Opinion]

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]

006 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Singh   2019-02-28
[Oral Arguments]
 
2019-07-17
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
057
2018 MAS Associates Korotki 2018-12-13 2019-03-01
[Oral Arguments]
2019-08-08
[Opinion]

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)

003 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Sanderson   2019-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
 
2019-07-23
[Opinion]

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]

062
2018 Moser Heffington 2019-01-07 2019-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
2019-08-16
[Opinion]

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]

056
2018 Comptroller Taylor 2018-12-13 2019-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
2019-07-29
[Opinion]

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]

073
2018 State Thomas 2019-03-05 2019-05-02
[Oral Arguments]
2019-08-09
[Opinion]

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]

077
2018 Bailey State 2019-03-05 2019-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
2019-07-17
[Opinion[

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)

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

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
[Oral Arguments]
2019-08-16
[Opinion]

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
[Oral Arguments]
2019-07-12
[Opinion]

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)

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]

004
2019 Frazier McCarron 2019-04-10 2019-10-02  

General Provisions – 1) For the imposition of a public fine under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”), must the public body not only “willfully” meet “with knowledge” that its meeting is in violation of the Act, but also have a nefarious motive? 2) When the OMA is violated, but a trial court erroneously finds no violation, is that error “harmless” with respect to enforcing the Act? 3) Should the OMA be strictly construed to limit a public body’s actions to the closed meeting exceptions it publicly discloses prior to the meeting?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1297, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

012
2019 Wynne Comptroller 2019-05-14 2019-10-02  

Taxation – Did the trial court correctly hold that Section 16 of the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2014 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, even though it reduces the interest on tax refunds paid to a discrete class of taxpayers engaged in interstate commerce?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3139, Sept. Term, 2018 (pending)

018
2019 Motor Vehicle Admin. Pollard 2019-06-07 2019-10-02  

Transportation – Was the administrative law judge in error to believe that a drunk driving suspect who refused a test for alcohol concentration could avoid a license suspension by asserting the defense he was “sheltering” in a vehicle without regard to the detaining officer’s reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist had been driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?

No. C-05-CV-18-000156, Circuit Court for Caroline County

017
2019 Hoang Lowery 2019-06-07 2019-10-04  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA ignore established precedent and rules of statutory construction in holding that the tolling statute provided for under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-202 indefinitely tolled, until the closure of the bankruptcy case, actions only against debtors denied a discharge in bankruptcy? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the policy of the tolling statute should apply to cases where the debtor is denied a discharge, did CSA err in holding 1) that the statute applied to the creditor’s failure to renew his judgment; and 2) that the tolling should continue until the closure of the bankruptcy case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2085, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

020
2019 Simms State 2019-06-07 2019-10-04  

Criminal Procedure – 1) In order to issue a hospital warrant, which initiates the process of revoking conditional release granted to individuals who have been found guilty but not criminally responsible, does a trial court only have to find probable cause to believe that the individual violated a term of the conditional release order, or does the court also have to find probable cause to believe that the individual poses a danger to self, others, or property? 2) In order to comply with constitutional due process, must §3-121 of the Criminal Procedure Article be interpreted to require that a hospital warrant may be issued only where the warrant-issuing court finds probable cause to believe that the patient poses a danger to self, others, or property?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1898, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

013
2019 Lee Lee 2019-05-14 2019-10-04  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) When a judgment has been entered properly in a trial court’s electronic case management system in compliance with Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2), must the docket entry and its date of entry also be identified clearly on the Case Search feature of the Judiciary website in order for there to have been an “entry” of the judgment to begin the 30-day time period in which an appeal must be filed? 2) When a federal court judgment is recorded and entered in a Maryland circuit court, may the state court judgment be renewed independently of any renewal of the federal court judgment?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1732, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

016
2019 Pinner Pinner 2019-06-07 2019-10-07  

Civil Procedure – Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City abuse its discretion in holding that an out-of-state defendant had sufficient contact through her attorneys for specific personal jurisdiction under the Maryland long arm statute for failing to name a use plaintiff and give the notice required by Md. Rule 15-1001 in a protracted, still continuing wrongful death case that the out-of-state resident initiated in the same Maryland court and from which she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1231, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

011
2019 Kazadi State 2019-05-14 2019-10-07  

Criminal Law – 1) Is a criminal defendant entitled, upon request, to voir dire questions aimed at identifying prospective jurors who are unable or unwilling to apply the principles that the State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is presumed innocent, and that the defendant has the right to remain silent and refuse to testify and that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant’s silence? 2) Where a critical State’s witness reveals pretrial that she and her minor child, also a witness, are subject to a deportation order, must the State provide in discovery the witness’s Alien Number and a copy of the deportation order so that defense counsel may identify potential impeachment evidence as described in Maryland Rules 5-608(b) and 5-616(a)(4)? 3) Where defense counsel has a good-faith basis to believe that critical State’s witnesses are the subject of deportation orders, is defense counsel entitled to cross-examine those witnesses about their immigration issues pursuant to Maryland Rules 5-608(b) and 5-616(a)(4), the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 779, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

015
2019 Motor Vehicle Admin. Medvedeff 2019-05-14 2019-10-07  

Transportation – Is it error for an administrative law judge to impose credibility determinations and inferences from circumstances at the scene of a drunk driving arrest in making a legal determination that the detaining officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect that the person sitting in the driver’s seat after a traffic stop was driving and, therefore, that the officer could not request that the detainee take an alcohol concentration test under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1?

No. C-06-CV-18-00090, Circuit Court for Carroll County

019
2019 Credible Behavioral Health Johnson 2019-06-07 2019-10-08  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court erroneously apply Md. Rule 7-113(f) when it reviewed the district court’s construction of a contract’s terms for clear error rather than de novo? 2) Did the plain terms of the parties’ promissory note (“Note”) entitle Petitioner to a judgment against the Respondent? 3) In interpreting the Note, did Maryland law require the trial court to choose the one among two possible readings of the Note that was consistent with the parties’ intent?

No. 9858D, Circuit Court for Montgomery County

014
2019 Peterson State 2019-05-14 2019-10-08  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Is postconviction relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 2) Is coram nobis relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 3) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, who was convicted of a crime and found not to be criminally responsible and was on conditional release, was not eligible to collaterally challenge his convictions by either a postconviction petition or a petition for writ of coram nobis?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2332, Sept. Term, 2013; No. 474, Sept. Term, 2014

021
2019 Neal Bd. of School Comm'rs. 2019-06-07 2019-10-08  

Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s order granting a Motion to Enforce Judgments against a school board pursuant to Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol.) §5-518 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) was barred by res judicata? 2) May a judgment solely against a school board employee be levied against a school board pursuant to CJP §5-518?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2366, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

024
2019 Rossello Zurich Amer. Insurance 2019-07-12 2019-10-31  

Insurance Law – Does Maryland Law construe Respondent’s 1974 insurance policies as promising to pay the judgment in full, contrary to the law of some other states?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2436, Sept. Term, 2018 (pending)

029
2019 State Mann 2019-07-12 2019-10-31  

Criminal Law – Did CSA err when it held that defense counsel’s failure to request an alibi jury instruction was prejudicial, for the purpose of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), when the presence of that instruction would not have presented a likelihood of a different outcome of the trial?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 80, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]

027
2019 McFarland Balt. Comm. Lending 2019-07-12 2019-10-31  

Financial Institutions – 1) For joint-ownership bank accounts, should the “equal share” approach apply under Maryland law to impose a rebuttable presumption that all account holders own equal shares of the funds held in a joint account? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving (by clear and convincing evidence) that she was the sole owner of her social security and pension retirement funds in the bank account?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2103, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

040 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Miller   2019-11-04   Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
023
2019 Gables Construction Red Coats 2019-06-24 2019-11-04  

Torts – As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in holding that a defendant can be liable for joint tortfeasor contribution even though it is not liable to the injured person in tort by virtue of a contractual waiver of claims covered by insurance?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 907, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

028
2019 Tunnell State 2019-07-12 2019-11-04  

Criminal Procedure – Is the 180-day deadline set forth by Md. Rule 4-271 and Md. Code (2008 Repl. Vol.) § 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article, known as the ‘Hicks Rule,’ tolled while the State awaits the results of DNA testing?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2061, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

025
2019 State Zadeh 2019-07-12 2019-11-05  

Criminal Law – 1) When a jointly tried defendant claims that there were too many limiting instructions for a jury to effectively follow, should the reviewing court first consider whether the limiting instructions were justified by non-mutually admissible evidence? 2) When a warrant authorizes the seizure of certain evidence from a car, and an officer, during a lawful frisk of the driver, feels evidence that falls within the warrant, does the plain-feel doctrine permit the seizure of that evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1329, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

022
2019 Motor Vehicle Admin. Barrett 2019-06-07 2019-11-05  

Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that a driver detained for driving under the influence of alcohol failed to rebut a police officer’s certification that he was fully advised of the administrative sanctions of Md. Code (2018 Supp.) §16-205.1 of the Transportation Article after being given a copy of the DR-15 Advice of Rights form, which the officer read aloud to him, and thereafter asked the motorist seven times if he wanted to take a test for alcohol concentration, which the motorist refused?

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, No. C-02-CV-18-002886