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
024
2020 State Miller 2020-08-26 2020-12-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court violated Respondent’s right to confrontation by admitting the results of DNA testing and analysis through a witness who did not author the report of DNA testing and analysis, but who served as its technical reviewer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2053, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
019
2020 Leidig State 2020-07-13 2020-12-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Constitutional Law – Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it admitted DNA and serological evidence through a witness who did not perform the analysis of the crime scene evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 463, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
018
2020 Impac Mortgage Holdings Timm 2020-07-13 2020-12-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-15
[Opinion]
Corporations & Associations – 1) Did CSA err by construing the amendments to Petitioner’s corporate charter as unambiguous without addressing whether Petitioner’s construction is reasonable? 2) Did the trial court err by applying contra proferentem and granting summary judgment despite evidence of the parties’ intent and material fact disputes without giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2119, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
020
2020 In re: Special Investigation Misc. 1064   2020-07-13 2020-12-07

Please note: Oral Arguments in this case are sealed by order of the Court of Appeals.

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-06-10
[Order]

Please note: The opinion in this case is sealed by order of the Court of Appeals. 
 
Court of Special Appeals, No. 3463, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
 
028
2020 State Ablonczy 2020-10-06 2021-01-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
2021-06-23
[Opinion]
Criminal Procedure – Should accepting a jury as ultimately empaneled waive any prior objection to the trial court’s refusal to propound voir dire questions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3219, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported).
006 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Dailey   2021-01-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
2021-07-23
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
036
2020 Cherry Baltimore City 2020-11-10 2021-02-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Municipal Codes – 1) Did the trial court err in its reliance on Appellee’s actuarial expert who, in calculating breach of contract damages, failed to estimate what retirement benefit increases would have been owed by implementing the statutory plan contract as written and applied for decades? 2) Did the trial court err in computing breach of contract damages when it misinterpreted the actuarial funding required under Appellee’s statutory pension contract? 3) Did the trial court err in holding that Appellee did not breach its statutory pension contract with the active employee members of the retirement plan by the passage of Baltimore City Ordinance 10-306, which reduced promised pension benefits?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 188, Sept. Term, 2020 (pending)
032
2020 Lawrence State 2020-10-06 2021-02-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Is wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about one’s person a strict liability crime?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 319, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
037
2020 State Morris 2020-11-10 2021-02-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does the trial court have discretion to admit testimony regarding a witness’ fear in the absence of a prior inconsistent statement by that witness? 2) If the trial court has that discretion, does the trial court have the discretion to admit testimony regarding the witness’ fear on direct examination in an appropriate case? 3) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in admitting brief testimony regarding fear, which made no mention of Respondent, during the direct examination of two witnesses?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2603, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
038
2020 Cain Midland Funding 2020-11-10 2021-03-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer? 3) Does Federal tolling under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(d) or class action tolling from a prior Federal action apply to a subsequent Maryland state action? 4) Did CSA have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s non-final orders?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1805, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
039
2020 Gambrell Midland Funding 2020-11-10 2021-03-04
[Oral Arguments]


These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1939, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)
043
2020 Nationstar Mortgage Kemp 2020-11-23 2021-03-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Commercial Law – 1) Does the definition of a “lender” in Md. Code § 12-101(f) of the Commercial Law Article (“CL”) as “a person who makes a loan” include a mortgage purchaser and a mortgage servicer who do not make loans? 2) Is the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act limited to policing methods of collection and does it exempt claims for collector’s unlawful claims for amounts barred by Maryland law? 3) Does CL § 14-202(8) exclude novel collection practices?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2652, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
030
2020 Chavis Blibaum & Assoc. 2020-10-06 2021-03-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Commercial Law – 1) Does using a wage garnishment to collect excess post-judgment interest and post-judgment filing fees constitute a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code §14-202(8) of the Commercial Law Article?  2) Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for class certification, without conducting a hearing, when the undisputed evidence presented to the Court established that the identity of every class member can be established from the Respondent’s records?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 334, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
041
2020 Mahai State 2020-11-10 2021-03-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-20
[Opinion]
Constitutional Law – 1) Does Article IV, § 14A of the Maryland Constitution, which authorizes CSA to exercise only intermediate appellate jurisdiction, preclude CSA from exercising final appellate jurisdiction by issuing a summary denial of an application for leave to appeal without addressing the issues raised, which has been held to bar further appellate review under Md. Code § 12-202 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”). 2) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to jury instructions regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? 3) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to voir dire questions that shifted the burden of determining bias to the venirepersons? 4) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to file a motion for modification of sentence and a motion for sentence review?

Court of Special Appeals, ALA No. 207, Sept. Term, 2020
047
2020 Esteppe Balt. City Police Dept. 2020-12-07 2021-04-08
[Opinion]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Under the first prong of the scope of employment test, does a police officer act in the scope of employment when he performs traditional law enforcement functions with mixed motives? 2) Did CSA err when it declined to rule upon Respondent’s argument that Petitioner should be judicially estopped from arguing that the officer’s motivation was professional when, at the liability trial, Petitioner argued repeatedly that the officer’s motivation was purely personal and the trial court accepted that argument in order to find the officer liable for civil conspiracy?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3128, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
046
2020 Wallace State 2020-12-07 2021-04-09
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) When reviewing whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, is it proper for a reviewing court to evaluate prejudice by determining whether deficient performance would have been ameliorated had the error been brought to the trial court’s attention? 2) Did CSA err in advising post-conviction courts that the cumulative effect theory – i.e., the theory that prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), may be found by considering the collective impact of multiple instances of deficient performance – has “exceedingly narrow” application? 3) Did CSA err in holding that defense counsel’s failure to object to an erroneous instruction on attempted second-degree murder required the reversal of only that conviction, that defense counsel did not prejudice Petitioner when she failed to object to the disclosure to the jury that Petitioner had previously been convicted of a crime of violence, and/or that trial counsel’s failure to object to alleged bad-acts/other-crimes evidence constituted neither deficient performance nor conduct prejudicing Petitioner?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1414, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
011 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Moawad   2021-04-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
049
2020 Riverdale Park Ashkar 2021-01-06 2021-04-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-15
[Opinion]
State Government - 1) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s ruling that Respondent had failed to prove that Petitioner’s business decision was pretextual and not based on discrimination? 2) Did CSA err in directing that the case be remanded so that the jury’s verdict could be reinstated, where the trial court expressly ruled that Respondent had failed to prove damages in any non-speculative manner, and where the verdict is, in any event, subject to a statutory cap lower than the amount of the verdict?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2714, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
040
2020 Wright State 2020-11-10 2021-04-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-13
[Opinion]
Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in giving a flight instruction where the sole contested issue in the case was the identity of the person who committed the crime and fled the scene?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 733, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
044
2020 E.N. T.R. 2020-12-07 2021-04-13
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-12
[Opinion]
Family Law – When a de facto parentship is formed and fostered at the behest of one legal parent without the knowledge or consent of the other legal parent, does the non-consenting parent retain her superior claim to custody, protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, against the de facto parent, thereby requiring the de facto parent to prove that the non-consenting parent is unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1231, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
045
2020 Angel Enterprises Talbot Cnty. 2020-12-07 2021-04-13
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-09
[Opinion]
Local Codes – 1) Did the Board of Appeals (“Board”) violate Petitioners’ due process rights by requiring Petitioners to bear the burden of proof (including the burdens of persuasion and going forward with the evidence) to explain Respondent’s basis for its actions and also to disprove the propriety and amount of Respondent’s civil penalties? 2) Did the Board err in imposing penalties on a daily, continuing basis, including for days when no violative conduct occurred, and while Petitioners were exercising their right to challenge Respondent’s allegations and attempt to impose penalties? 3) Did the Board err in finding that Respondent has the legal authority to impose continuing violation penalties where the Express Powers Act limits the County’s ability to impose fines and does not authorize penalties for continuing violations? 4) Did the Board err in determining that the civil penalties imposed by Respondent were stayed upon the filing of Petitioners’ appeal pursuant to Talbot County Code §§ 58-12A(3) and 20-6B(3)? 5) Are the civil penalties sought by Respondent unconstitutionally excessive in violation of the Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 6) Should an appellate court decide an issue of judicial estoppel that occurred during the judicial review period after an administrative decision (and not remand to the administrative body for review)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2842, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
010 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Vasiliades   2021-05-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
048
2020 RDC Melanie Dr. Eppard 2021-01-06 2021-05-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-15
[Opinion]
Real Property – 1) As a matter of first impression, is the Amended Declaration enforceable against Petitioner/Cross-Respondent where the Amended Declaration adds new restrictions and the language of the amendment clause of the Original Declaration does not expressly permit changes which add new restrictions? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in ruling that the Amended Declaration does not add additional restrictions to Lot 6, where it plainly adds new restrictions prohibiting golf course uses and driving ranges? 3) Is the enforcement of the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance,” or any amendment thereto, subject to review on an objective standard? 4) Have Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims that the use of Lot 6 as a driving range will be “noxious or offensive” or cause “annoyance or nuisance” been fully litigated before the Board of Appeals and are those claims precluded by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata? If not, is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to a trial on those issues and claims? 5) Are the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other owners” too vague to be enforced? 6) Does the Original Declaration prohibit golf course uses, driving ranges, or other commercial activity under a uniform plan of development? 7) Is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to summary judgment on the Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims arising from Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (m) of the Original Declaration and from the Zajic Declaration? 8) In this declaratory judgment action, were the trial court and CSA obliged to review each provision of the applicable covenants addressed by the parties in the pleadings and to declare the rights and obligations of the parties based upon the language of the instruments, read together in accordance with their express terms and the intent thereof as stated in the instruments? 9) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to render an analysis whether the Original Declarations, by their terms, intended only a residential and agricultural use subdivision? 10) Did the trial court and CSA err by declaring that the issues arising under the Zajic Declaration were moot under the circumstances of this case? 11) Did the trial court and CSA err in their interpretation that the Original Declaration permits a boundary line adjustment with a non-subdivision lot for the purpose of permitting resort and golf course uses on land intended for only residential and agricultural use? 12) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to address Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ request for injunctive relief in light of their conclusion that the Amended Declaration is a valid prohibition of driving range development?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1146, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
050
2020 Madrid State 2021-02-08 2021-05-07
[Oral Arguments]


These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-07-09
[Opinion]
Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the defense of duress was “unavailable … as a matter of law” to Petitioner because of his gang involvement? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of “some evidence” required to generate the defense of duress? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress his statement to police because: (a) the interrogating officer’s statements leading to Petitioner’s confession constituted an impermissible inducement; (b) Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that Petitioner, a minor with no prior experience with the criminal justice system, knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights following a 40-second advisement of his rights which did not include a written waiver; (3) under the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner’s confession was involuntary?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1937, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
053
2020 Kidder State 2021-02-08 2021-05-07
[Oral Arguments]


These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Did CSA err by upholding the trial court’s method of jury selection, which was disapproved but allowed in the Court’s reported decision in Williams v. State, 246 Md.App. 308 (2020), whereby the trial court excluded prospective jurors from the venire based on shared characteristics, without a finding of bias?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3160, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
071 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Brooks   2021-05-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
055
2020 Mainor State 2021-02-08 2021-05-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Did the trial court abuse its discretion and violate Petitioner’s right to present information in mitigation of punishment where the court insisted that petitioner be sentenced before it discharged the jury and refused to postpone sentencing for either a presentence investigation or the appearance and testimony of Petitioner’s mother on his behalf?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1068, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
051
2020 Davis State 2021-02-08

2021-05-11
[Oral Arguments].

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 

2021-07-12
[Opinion]
Criminal Procedure – As a matter of first impression, does a trial court determining whether to transfer jurisdiction of a criminal case to the juvenile court discharge its responsibility under Md. Code § 4-202(d)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Article to consider the “amenability of the child to treatment in an institution, facility, or program available to delinquent children” by considering the child’s eligibility for services in the juvenile system, or does the court also need to consider the child’s rehabilitative potential?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2014, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
054
2020 MAS Assoc. Korotki 2021-02-8 2021-06-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.

This case was merged with No. 59, below, for the purpose of oral arguments.
  Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Associates v. Korotki, 465 Md. 457 (2019) (“MAS Assoc.”), by entering judgment on two counts – unjust enrichment and wage payment – that were never appealed after the 2015 trial and were the subject of a final, enrolled judgment? 2) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Assoc. by entering judgment against a former party who was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction? 3) In adjusting damages awarded under the Maryland Wage and Collection Law, did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding no bona fide dispute and awarding no attorney’s fees or treble damages? 4) In adjusting damages awarded under unjust enrichment, did the trial court abuse its discretion in calculating prejudgment interest from the date of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner’s resignation rather than the date he made the loan? 5) Did the trial court err by not declaring judgment or adjusting damages under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act or the Md. Declaratory Judgment Act?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1103, Sept. Term, 2020 (pending)
059
2020 MAS Assoc. Korotki 2021-03-26 2021-06-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.

This case was merged with No. 54, above, for the purpose of oral arguments.
  Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Associates v. Korotki, 465 Md. 457 (“MAS Assoc. I”), by entering judgment on two counts – unjust enrichment and wage payment – that were never appealed after the 2015 trial and were the subject of a final, enrolled judgment? 2) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Assoc. I by entering judgment against a former party who was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction? 3) In adjusting damages awarded under the Maryland Wage and Collection Law, did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding no bona fide dispute and awarding no attorney’s fees or treble damages? 4) In adjusting damages awarded under unjust enrichment, did the trial court abuse its discretion in calculating prejudgment interest from the date of Respondent’s resignation rather than the date he made the loan? 5) Did the trial court err by not declaring judgment or adjusting damages under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act or the Maryland Declaratory Judgment Act?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1455, Sept. Term, 2020 (pending)
052
2020 Ocean City Worcester Cnty. 2021-02-08 2021-06-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Tax-Property – 1) Are Md. Code §6-305 and §6-306 of the Tax-Property Article (“TP”) – which provide for mandatory real property tax setoffs for certain municipalities, but only optional tax setoffs for other municipalities, including Ocean City – constitutional under Article XI-E, §1 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires the General Assembly to “act in relation to the …government or affairs of any … municipal corporation only by general laws which shall in their terms and in their effect apply alike to all municipal corporations”? 2) Should the unconstitutionally non-uniform provisions of TP §6-305 and §6-306 be severed to the end that all municipalities in this State should be entitled to receive mandatory tax setoffs from the counties in which they are located, upon a showing by a municipality that it performs services of a type provided by the county (i.e., upon a showing that it is entitled to setoff)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2751, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
014 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Tatung   2021-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
058
2020 Brawner Builders State Highway Admin. 2021-03-05 2021-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
  State Finance & Procurement – 1) Did CSA and the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals (“MSBCA”) misconstrue the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) definition of a “Procurement Contract” and thereby erroneously conclude that the subcontractor lacked standing to pursue its separate claims against the Maryland State Highway Administration (“SHA”)? 2) Did CSA and MSCBA improperly conclude that “untimely notice” was a jurisdictional bar to Petitioner’s and the subcontractor’s claims rather than an affirmative defense subject to the doctrine of equitable estoppel? 3) Did CSA and MSCBA err when they decided issues of material fact regarding Petitioner’s “notice” and the factual issue of the existence of a contract between the subcontractor and SHA by disregarding SHA’s admissions that claims were pending, would be responded to, and that an administrative process was ongoing?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1643, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
020 Misc.
2020 Application of A.D.     2021-09-09   In the Matter of the Application of A.D. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
031 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Cassilly   2021-09-09   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
001 Misc.
2021 Moore RealPage Utility Mgmt.   2021-09-09   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: Does Md. Code Ann., Public Utilities § 7-304 prohibit the use of energy allocation equipment and procedures, which have not been approved by the Public Service Comission, to bill energy charges to tenants of properties built prior to 1978?
009 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Jackson   2021-09-13   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
003
2021 O'Sullivan State 2021-04-09 2021-09-13   Criminal Law – 1) In an oath-against-oath perjury case, is the State relieved of its burden of production under the two-witness rule by introducing circumstantial evidence? 2) Was there sufficient evidence that Petitioner/Cross-Respondent committed perjury and misconduct in office? 3) Should the two-witness rule, which provides for a heightened burden of production that is only applicable to the misdemeanor offense of perjury, be prospectively abrogated in favor of the standard burden of production in a criminal case, which requires the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and trusts in the ability of the fact-finder to weigh evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2275, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
005
2021 State Galicia 2021-04-09 2021-09-13   Criminal Law – 1) When a statement against penal interest inculpates a third party, but not the defendant, does the trial court abuse its discretion when it does not allow the defendant to elicit evidence about the statement? 2) Is expert testimony required to explain to a fact-finder that a “gap” in the “location history” records for a Google account could have been caused by the account holder turning off the “location history” service?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3350, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
069 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Daley   2021-09-14   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
004
2021 Alarcon-Ozoria State 2021-04-09 2021-09-14   Criminal Law – 1) Does the State’s obligation to exercise due diligence in identifying and disclosing relevant materials in criminal litigation extend to phone call recordings collected and preserved by the State’s jail facilities? 2) In a criminal case, does a recording of a defendant’s own statement that is not disclosed until the morning of trial constitute an unfair surprise to the defense, such that it requires relief?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2149, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
001
2021 Velicky CopyCat Building 2021-03-05 2021-09-10   Real Property – 1) Must a landlord have a rental license to evict a tenant under Md. Code §8-402 of the Real Property Article when local law requires a license to operate the premises as a landlord? 2) Did the trial court err by determining that an appeal from a tenant holding over action should be heard de novo instead of on-the-record when the 2-month value of rent for the premises exceeded the threshold for on-the-record appeals under Md. Rule 7-102(b)?

Circuit Court for Baltimore City, No. 24-C-20-004248
002
2021 Walke CopyCat Building 2021-03-05 2021-09-10   Real Property – Is an unlicensed landlord leasing rental properties in a jurisdiction requiring licensure allowed to judicially enforce its unlicensed activities in Maryland courts?

Circuit Court for Baltimore City, No. 24-C-20-004247
003 Misc.
2021 Lyles Santander Consumer USA   2021-10-04   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: If a credit grantor is found to have knowingly violated Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions ("CLEC"), Maryland Code Annotated, Commercial Law §§12-1001, et seq., does CLEC § 12-1018(b) require the credit grantor to return three times: (1) all amounts collected by the credit grantor in excess of the principal amount financed; (2) only those amounts collected that the borrower contends violate the CLEC (in this case, the convenience fee); or (3) some other amount.
011
2021 Johnson State 2021-05-11 2021-10-04   Criminal Law – Is a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict violated when the State presents evidence of multiple incidents at trial to prove a single charged count, in the absence of an election between the incidents or a special jury instruction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1329, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
008
2021 Pabst Brewing Frederick P. Winner, Ltd. 2021-05-11 2021-10-04   Alcoholic Beverages – When control of a beer brand changes hands through a sale of the stock of a beer manufacturer, is there a “successor beer manufacturer” with the right to terminate a distribution agreement?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1882, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
047 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Malone   2021-10-06   Attorney disciplinary matter.
012
2021 Webb Giant of Maryland 2021-05-11 2021-10-06   Civil Procedure – 1) In reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment but not the denial of a motion for judgment under the abuse of discretion standard, did CSA depart from its own precedent in holding that a trial court’s denial of both motions for summary judgment and/or for judgment are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard? 2) Where the evidence did not change between summary judgment and through trial, did CSA, which upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue of material fact, then err in reversing the trial court’s ruling denying the motion for judgment addressing the same issue of material fact? 3) Where CSA indicated that there was sufficient evidence to argue that jurors could draw negative inferences from the absence of video footage of the incident, did CSA err both in holding that the trial court’s decision to provide a standard spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion and in holding that giving the instruction also resulted in probable prejudice?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 413, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
009
2021 Mercer Thomas B. Finan Center 2021-05-11 2021-10-06   Health-General – Did CSA err by holding that Md. Code § 10-708 of the Health-General Article does not require an Administrative Law Judge to make an on-the-record assessment of whether the Respondent waived his statutory right to counsel?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1389, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
006
2021 Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. Thornton Mellon, LLC 2021-05-11 2021-10-07   Tax-Property – 1) Is a tax sale certificate no longer assignable once a court enters judgment foreclosing the right of redemption? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that a tax sale certificate is assignable after foreclosure, was the purported assignment here nonetheless invalid for failure to comply with provisions of law relating to the short assignment of mortgages? 3) Is a judgment foreclosing the right of redemption non-assignable? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that a foreclosure judgment is assignable, must the assignment be filed and docketed in the circuit court, not merely attached as an exhibit to a motion, before the assignee can enforce the judgment in the assignee’s name?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1940, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
010
2021 In Re: S.F.   2021-05-11 2021-10-07   Juvenile Law – Is it improper for a juvenile court to make a school’s discretionary decision to suspend a child a violation of the child’s probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 582, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
007
2021 Park Plus Palisades of Towson 2021-05-11 2021-10-08   Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the order compelling arbitration and ignoring the principles set forth in Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Anand M. Dhanda, 426 Md. 185 (2012)? 2) Did CSA err in following Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Construction, Inc., 243 Md.App. 376 (2019), which limited the application of Kumar to contracts for non-binding arbitration and held that Md. Code § 5-101 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article does not govern claims subject to contractual arbitration? 3) Did the trial court and CSA err by treating a petition to compel arbitration as a “claim” with a separate limitations period, rather than as a remedy that must be properly invoked within the applicable limitations period for the substantive claim? 4) In the alternative, did the trial court err in failing to refer the statute-of-limitations issue to the arbitrator, and thereafter in confirming the arbitral award, even though the arbitrator refused to hear Petitioner’s affirmative defense based on the statue of limitations applicable to Respondent’s claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1723, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
004 Misc.
2021 Westfield Insurance Gilliam   2021-10-08   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: For purposes of determining the reduction of a plaintiff's underinsured motorist benefits required by Maryland Insurance Code 19-513(e), does Maryland law treat the "write-down," or the difference between medical bills submitted by a workers' compensation claimant's health care provider and the lower amount actually paid by a workers' compensation insurer to satisfy those bills, pursuant to the Maryland Guide of Medical and Surgical Fees, as "recovered benefits" to the plaintiff under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act?
013
2021 Koushall State 2021-06-22 2021-11-01   Criminal Law – 1) Where a conviction for misconduct in office is based on the corrupt doing of an unlawful act, does the conviction for the “unlawful act” merge with the conviction for misconduct in office for sentencing purposes? 2) Was there sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s convictions for assault in the second degree and misconduct in office?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2031, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
019
2021 Broadway Services Comptroller 2021-07-09 2021-11-01   Tax-General – 1) Where tangible personal property is purchased by an intermediary contractor for the use of a non-profit charitable institution in carrying on its exempt purpose, are those purchases exempt from Maryland sales and use tax in light of John McShain, Inc. v. Comptroller, 252 Md. 68 (1953) under Md. Code § 11-204 of the Tax-General Article? 2) Were the Maryland Tax Court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence such that the purchases in question are exempt from Maryland sales and use tax?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2807, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
015
2021 State Matthews 2021-06-22 2021-11-01   Criminal Law – Did CSA err by holding that an expert witness created an “analytical gap,” and thus rendered her testimony inadmissible as a matter of law, by acknowledging the limitations of her scientific methodology?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3280, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
021
2021 Kumar State 2021-07-09 2021-11-02   Criminal Law – 1) Does the holding of Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), apply to all litigants who preserved the issue and whose cases were not yet final when the Kazadi opinion was issued, regardless of whether they had filed a notice of appeal by that date? 2) Did CSA violate Petitioner’s constitutional right to equal protection by applying different law to Petitioner’s case as compared to other similarly situated litigants?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 300, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
051 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Bonner   2021-11-08   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
014
2021 Amaya DGS Construction 2021-06-22 2021-11-08   Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1857, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
017
2021 Rojas F.R. General Contractors 2021-06-22 2021-11-08   Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report? 4) Did CSA err in importing the federal PPA compensability requirements in determining whether a benefit was conferred on Respondents for the purpose of proving a Maryland common law unjust enrichment claim, especially when Respondents failed to move for judgment on that claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1529, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
018
2021 Spiegel Bd. of Ed., Howard Cnty. 2021-06-22 2021-11-09   Education – 1) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors 11 years of age and older from selecting a member holding a binding voting position on the Howard County Board of Education, whether by election, appointment, or any other means? 2) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors from holding the office of a binding voting position on the Board of Education of Howard County, a board which possesses general governmental power?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 117, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
020
2021 Sanders Bd. of Ed., Harford Cnty. 2021-07-09 2021-11-09   Workers’ Compensation – Is a denial of a Request to Reopen/Modify filed with the Worker’s Compensation Commission pursuant to Md. Code § 9-736(b) of the Labor & Employment Article subject to judicial review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 111, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]