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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
010
|
2022 | Abruquah | State | 2022-06-03 | 2022-10-04 [Oral Arguments] |
Criminal Law – Is firearm identification methodology sufficiently reliable to allow an examiner to identify a specific firearm as the source of a questioned bullet or casing, or should the examiner be permitted to testify, at most, that a firearm cannot be excluded as the source of the questioned projectile? Court of Special Appeals, No. 1395, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending) |
|
|
008
|
2022 | Belton | State | 2022-05-09 | 2022-10-04 [Oral Arguments] |
Constitutional Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does a criminal defendant’s right to a fair and impartial judge and the appearance of a fair and impartial judge extend to appellate proceedings? 2) Does dicta in CSA’s reported opinion violate Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 3) Did CSA err in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Recall and Reconsider Reported Opinion where the opinion denies Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of Petitioner’s testimony regarding the victim’s statement, “This is my block,” which was critical to Petitioner’s self-defense and defense-of-others defenses, constituted harmless error? Court of Special Appeals, No. 720, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion] |
|
|
021
|
2022 | Emergency Remedy of Board of Elections | 2022-10-07 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-03-29 [Opinion] 2022-10-07 [PC Order] |
Election Law – 1) Did the trial court correctly rule that the remedy sought under Md. Code § 8-103(b)(1) of the Election Law (“E.L.”)article comports with the principle of separation of powers because the remedy, an adjustment to the electoral calendar, is a function routinely entrusted to the judicial branch? 2) Did the trial court correctly rule that the incoming volume of mail-in ballots and inadequate time frame in which to process them constitute “emergency circumstances” that “interfere with the electoral process” as those terms are used in E.L. § 8-103(b)(1)? Court of Special Appeals, No. 1282, Sept. Term, 2022 (pending) |
||
|
048 AG
|
2021 | Attorney Grievance | Kalarestaghi | 2022-11-03 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-03-14 [Opinion] |
Attorney disciplinary matter. |
|
|
011
|
2022 | Dept. of the Environment | Assateague Coastal Trust | 2022-06-03 | 2022-11-03 [Oral Arguments] |
Environmental Law – 1) Was the Department’s final determination to require individualized assessments of gaseous emissions for poultry houses and other animal feeding operations covered by the general permit supported by substantial evidence in the record and not arbitrary and capricious? 2) Did the Department err in issuing a General Discharge Permit for Animal Feeding Operations without including controls for ammonia emissions, when Md. water pollution control laws unambiguously require regulation of ammonia emissions 3) Do the Clean Water Act and the more stringent Md. water pollution control laws require water discharge limitations that take into account impaired receiving waters (i.e. water quality-based effluent limitations) where effluent limitations based solely on minimum levels of treatment achieved by technology are ineffective? Court of Special Appeals, No. 209, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending) |
|
|
041 AG
|
2021 | Attorney Grievance | Farmer | 2022-11-04 [Oral Arguments] |
Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
|
001 AG
|
2021 | Attorney Grievance | Jones | 2022-11-04 [Oral Arguments] |
Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
|
037 AG
|
2021 | Attorney Grievance | Sloane | 2022-12-05 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-03-02 [Opinion] |
Attorney disciplinary matter. | |
|
019
|
2022 | Walker | State | 2022-08-25 | 2022-12-05 [Oral Arguments] |
Public Safety – 1) Do the destruction and expungement provisions of the Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Code § 2-511 of the Public Safety (“P.S.”) apply to DNA samples collected from a person pursuant to a search warrant after the person is arrested and charged, or do those provisions apply only to so-called “arrestee” samples, as the Act has been interpreted in regulations promulgated by the Department of State Police? 2) Did the lower courts err in concluding that P.S. § 2-511 does not contain an exclusionary rule for violations of the destruction and expungement provisions of the Act? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the destruction and expungement provisions in P.S. § 2-511 apply only to arrestee samples, was the trial court’s finding of fact, that the DNA sample at issue here was not an arrestee sample, clearly erroneous; or, in the alternative, if the record is unclear as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample, should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Md. Rules 8-604, so that the court can receive evidence and make findings of fact as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample or was collected from Petitioner pursuant to a search warrant for his DNA? 4) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress DNA evidence? Court of Special Appeals, No. 433, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) |
|
|
017
|
2022 | Rowe | Md. Comm'n on Civil Rights | 2022-08-25 | 2022-12-05 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-03-29 [Opinion] |
State Government – Does CSA have jurisdiction over appeals from circuit courts of petitions for judicial review of Maryland Commission on Civil Rights no-probable-cause findings in public accommodations discrimination cases? Court of Special Appeals, No. 354, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) |
|
002 Misc.
|
2022 | Blake | State | 2022-12-06 [Oral Arguments] |
Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals Questions: 1) Did the post-conviction court err by holding that trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to compel discoverable impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness [Officer Laronde]? 2) In the alternative, did the post-conviction court err by ruling that the State had not violated its Brady obligations by failing to disclose impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness? |
||
|
016
|
2022 | Romeka | RadAmerica II | 2022-08-25 | 2023-01-06 [Oral Arguments] |
Health Occupations – 1) Did the trial court err by requiring a plaintiff with a retaliation claim under the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, Md. Code §1-502 of the Health Occupations Article, to show that protected conduct was the but-for cause of the challenged personnel action? 2) Did the trial court err in awarding summary judgment to the employer, despite genuine disputes of material fact, on the grounds that Petitioner could not establish her retaliation claim as a matter of law? Court of Special Appeals, No. 1207, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion] |
|
|
020
|
2022 | Balt. Police Dept. | Open Justice | 2022-09-23 | 2023-01-06 [Oral Arguments] |
General Provisions – 1) Does the discretionary language in Md. Code § 4-206(3) of the General Provisions Article, stating that, under certain conditions, “[t]he official custodian may waive a fee under this section,” require the official custodian to waive a fee when police misconduct investigation records are requested? 2) When an official custodian denies a fee waiver request in good faith, but a reviewing court rules that the denial is arbitrary and capricious for failure to consider an additional relevant factor, is the proper remedy a remand to the agency to consider that additional factor, or summary reversal (i.e., ordering the agency to waive the fee)? 3) Did CSA err by reversing the circuit’s affirmation of Petitioner’s fee waiver denial when there was sworn affidavit evidence in the record that Petitioner had considered the relevant factors in determining that the requested waiver was not in the public interest? Court of Special Appeals, No. 122, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) |
|
|
042 AG
|
2021 | Attorney Grievance | Pierre | 2023-02-02 [Oral Arguments] |
Attorney disciplinary matter. |
||
|
009 Misc.
|
2022 | Williams | Morgan State Univ. | 2023-02-02 [Oral Arguments] |
Certified Question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Question: Does the waiver of sovereign immunity for “tort action[s]” in the Maryland Tort Claims Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-104(a)(1), extend to federal statutory claims, including those where the alleged harm is wrongful termination in retaliation for whistleblowing? |
||
|
010 Misc.
|
2022 | Satterfield | State | 2023-02-03 [Oral Arguments] |
DNA appeal. | ||
|
023
|
2022 | Prince George's Cty. | Concerned Citizens | 2022-10-21 | 2023-02-03 [Oral Arguments] |
Land Use – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a former property use as a zoning subcategory was not “reasonable and based upon public policy” and therefore violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Land Use Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that it was not a reasonable public policy to use the zoning ordinance to seek to discontinue a non-conforming use when Maryland public policy favors their discontinuation? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a local legislative body may not use the zoning ordinance to incentivize closure of airports, and other activities closely regulated by the State? 4) Did CSA err by establishing a standard of review that effectively eliminated the presumption of correctness when a text amendment to a zoning ordinance is adopted? 5) Did CSA err in holding that Council Bill CB-17-2019 violated the uniformity clause under the Regional District Act? Court of Special Appeals, No. 472, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
003 AG
|
2022 | Attorney Grievance | Culberson | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-03-27 [Opinion] |
Attorney disciplinary matter. |
|
|
024
|
2022 | Fooks | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] |
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] |
|
|
026
|
2022 | Oglesby | Baltimore School Assoc. | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] |
Torts – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it found that Petitioner’s medical expert lacked an adequate supply of data to opine as to the source and source causation of Petitioner’s lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it held that Petitioner’s medical expert’s opinion regarding Petitioner’s IQ loss was inadmissible, when the medical expert relied on studies that Maryland courts have repeatedly sanctioned? 3) Did the trial court err when it granted summary judgment after it excluded Petitioner’s expert witness from testifying entirely where the expert had rendered other opinions wherein the jury could have found that Petitioner was injured from her exposure to lead? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the testimony of Petitioner’s expert witness in its entirety, and that the trial court did not err in subsequently granting summary judgment? Court of Special Appeals, No. 130, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) |
|
|
025
|
2022 | Clark | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-03 [Oral Arguments] |
Constitutional Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does requiring a criminal defendant to retroactively prove his desire to defy the trial court’s order against speaking with his attorney about his case during an overnight recess violate his constitutional right to counsel? 2) Does permitting counsel to neglect or waive his client’s right to speak with him during an overnight recess violate that client’s constitutional right to counsel? 3) Was the post-conviction court’s ruling that prejudice was found from trial counsel not preserving the issue for appeal correct? 4) Is not objecting to the violation of a criminal defendant’s right to counsel due to mere ignorance of the law deficient performance? Court of Special Appeals, No. 1614, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
028
|
2022 | Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, St. Mary's Cty. | Aiken | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-03 [Oral Arguments] |
Real Property – Did CSA misconstrue the 1988 deed as a matter of law by failing to consider the language, intent, and surrounding circumstances to hold that a “public road” was established on the disputed property, where the road project was no longer feasible and the deed specifically stated that the property was no longer needed for a public road? Court of Special Appeals, No. 478, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion] |
|
|
022
|
2022 | Woodlin | State | 2022-10-21 | 2023-04-04 | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As a matter of first impression, under Md. Code §10-923 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”), which permits the admission in certain circumstances of prior sexually assaultive behavior in prosecutions for child sexual offenses, what factors must a trial court consider in determining whether the probative value of that prior sexually assaultive behavior is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and, specifically, is the similarity or dissimilarity between the two offenses one of those factors? 2) As a matter of first impression, how should trial courts apply these factors, including the similarity or dissimilarity between the two offenses, in determining whether the probative value of the prior sexually assaultive behavior is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as required by CJP §10-923(3)(4)? 3) As a matter of first impression, if the trial court has determined that the probative value of the prior sexually assaultive behavior is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, how much of the factual details including the dissimilarities between the past and present offenses should be admitted at trial and what factors should be considered in making that determination? 4) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Petitioner’s ten-year old sexually abusive behavior on an adult male which was substantially dissimilar from the child abuse for which he was on trial? Court of Special Appeals, No. 107, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
038
|
2022 | Bennett | Harford Cty. | 2023-03-06 | 2023-04-04 | Local Code – 1) Does a schoolteacher employed by the Harford County Board of Education “hold employment” in the government of the County, the State of Maryland, or a municipality, thus barring them by the Harford County Charter from serving as a Member of the County Council? 2) Is a schoolteacher in a county prevented from serving as a member of the County’s legislative body by the doctrine of incompatible positions? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2204, Sept. Term, 2022 (pending) |
|
|
030
|
2022 | Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, etc., P.A. | Parkway Neuroscience & Spine | 2023-01-20 | 2023-05-04 | Maryland Rules – Did ACM err in finding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on lost profits? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 658, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
031
|
2022 | Smith | State | 2023-01-20 | 2023-05-04 | Criminal Law – Does the State’s two-decade long pattern of intentional, willful, and/or reckless misconduct, including widespread suppression of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and knowing false statements, mandate dismissal with prejudice under the Due Process Clause? A. Did the lower courts apply an erroneous standard and/or err in their evaluation of the prejudice suffered by Petitioner? B. Did the lower courts apply an erroneous standard and/or err in their determination that there was a less drastic alternative remedy to dismissal with prejudice? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 283, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
024 Misc.
|
2022 | Petition of Hosein | 2023-01-20 | 2023-05-04 | Certified Question from the Appellate Court of Maryland Question: Does the 15-day extension apply to all cases whose statute of limitations and deadlines related to initiation expired between March 16, 2020, and April 3, 2022? |
||
|
029 Misc.
|
2022 | Application of Moneri | 2023-05-05 | In the Matter of the Application of Neo Kamohelo Moneri for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
|||
|
001 AG
|
2022 | Attorney Grievance | Weinberg | 2023-05-05 | Attorney disciplinary matter. |
||
|
032
|
2022 | Comptroller | Comcast | 2023-01-20 | 2023-05-05 | Taxation – 1) Does the remedial scheme in Tax-General (“Tax-Gen.”) Title 13, including an express prohibition against judicial interference in tax assessment and collection, Tax-Gen. § 13-505, preclude taxpayers from bringing a court challenge to the constitutionality of the digital ad tax before exhausting administrative remedies? If not: 2) Did the trial court err in declaring that the Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause, where the Act’s plain language ensures that it taxes only revenue earned in Maryland, in fair proportion to a taxpayer’s economic activity in the State, and the Act applies equally to Maryland-based and out-of-state businesses? 3) Did the trial court err in declaring that the Act violates the First Amendment, where it satisfies the criteria in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Dept. of Finance of Baltimore City, 472 Md. 444 (2021), and the Act does not disfavor but instead benefits the press? 4) Did the trial court err in declaring that the digital advertising tax violates the Supremacy Clause and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, 47 U.S.C. §151 (“ITFA”), where the Supreme Court has held that the Supremacy Clause does not give rise to any right of action, Congress has not authorized a private right of action or remedy to enforce the ITFA, which lacks a feature needed for preemption, and the Act does not conflict with the ITFA? 5) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment when there remained genuine disputes of material fact? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1642, Sept. Term, 2022 (pending) |
|
|
033
|
2022 | Lloyd | Niceta | 2023-02-23 | 2023-06-01 | Family Law – 1) Are penalties in postnuptial contracts void, just as penalties in all other contracts are void? 2) If there is no blanket ban on penalties in postnuptial contracts, is the penalty in the parties’ contract void? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 934, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
034
|
2022 | Jackson | State | 2023-03-02 | 2023-06-01 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a defendant consent expressly to a trial date in violation of the 180-day rule in Md. Rule 4-271 and Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure § 6-103 when the trial date is dictated to the defendant by the court and the defendant does not choose the date? 2) Did Petitioner, a represented defendant appearing in court without her assigned counsel, consent expressly to a trial date in violation of the 180-day rule when she acknowledged for the court the date she had to appear for trial and, unbeknownst to her, that date was after the 180-day deadline? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1500, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
035
|
2022 | State | Powell | 2023-03-02 | 2023-06-01 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Can defense counsel’s conduct in relation to the scheduling of the first trial date, short of express consent to exceed the Hicks date or to the particular trial date selected, amount to implicitly seeking a first trial date in violation of the Hicks rule, forestalling dismissal for a violation of that rule? 2) Did Respondent’s counsel implicitly seek a first trial date in violation of the Hicks rule through his conduct in this case? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1501, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
028 Misc.
|
2022 | Doe | Catholic Relief Services | 2023-06-02 | Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Questions: 1) Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-606, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 2) Whether, under Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-604(2), the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act applies to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity to perform work connected with all activities of the religious entity or only those activities that are religious in nature. 3) Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-304, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. |
||
|
036
|
2022 | State | McDonnell | 2023-03-02 | 2023-06-02 | Criminal Law – 1) Did Respondent lack any legitimate expectation of privacy in a mirror-image copy of his laptop hard drive that the government created with his consent, and as to which he expressly disclaimed any possessory or privacy interest before the copy was created? 2) Did the ACM err in holding that Respondent’s revocation of consent to examine the contents of his laptop barred investigators from examining the mirror-image copy of his hard drive, when the post-withdrawal examination of the copy was not a search? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1246, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
|
037
|
2022 | Eastland Food Corp. | Mekhaya | 2023-03-02 | 2023-06-02 | Corporations & Associations – May a minority shareholder bring a direct action against a closely-held Md. corporation whose Board of Directors had never declared a dividend on the grounds that a portion of the employment compensation previously paid to him was a “de facto dividend” he expected to continue, even though this Court has never recognized the doctrine of “de facto dividend” and Maryland law provides dividends cannot accrue or be payable unless they are declared by the corporation’s Board of Directors? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 266, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |