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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
019
|
2022 | Walker | State | 2022-08-25 | 2022-12-05 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-07-28 [Opinion] |
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) |
|
002 Misc.
|
2022 | Blake | State | 2022-12-06 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-29 [Opinion] |
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] |
2023-08-30 [Opinion] |
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] |
2023-08-31 [Opinion] |
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) |
|
024
|
2022 | Fooks | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-15 [PC Order] |
Constitutional Law – 1) In view of existing Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent interim decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), what is the proper analytical framework to apply to constitutional challenges to Maryland’s firearms laws? 2) Did CSA fail to apply the proper analytical framework to the constitutional challenges in this case? 3) Is Md. Code § 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to this case? Court of Special Appeals, No. 269, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
|
025
|
2022 | Clark | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-03 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-31 [Opinion] |
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] |
|
038
|
2022 | Bennett | Harford Cty. | 2023-03-06 | 2023-04-04 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-30 [Opinion] 2023-04-05 [PC Order] |
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 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-30 [Opinion] |
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] |
|
001 AG
|
2022 | Attorney Grievance | Weinberg | 2023-05-05 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-31 [Opinion] |
Attorney disciplinary matter. |
|
|
033
|
2022 | Lloyd | Niceta | 2023-02-23 | 2023-06-01 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-30 [Opinion] |
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] |
|
037
|
2022 | Eastland Food Corp. | Mekhaya | 2023-03-02 | 2023-06-02 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-08-31 [Opinion] |
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] |
|
022 AG
|
2023 | Reinstatement of Wescott | 2023-09-07 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-09-08 [Order] |
In the Matter of the Petition of Sherwood R. Wescott for Reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland |
||
|
001
|
2023 | Matter of SmartEnergy Holdings | 2023-03-07 | 2023-09-07 [Oral Arguments] |
Public Utilities – 1) Did the ACM err in finding that the Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) has jurisdiction to interpret and enforce Md. Code, Commercial Law §14-2201(f), the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act (“MTSA”)? 2) Did the ACM err in finding that a telephone call made by a potential customer to SmartEnergy in response to a previously mailed postcard was a violation of the MTSA? 3) Did the ACM err in holding that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was not arbitrary and capricious? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1675, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
||
|
062 Misc.
|
2022 | Application of Howie | 2023-09-08 [Oral Arguments] |
In the Matter of the Application of Samuel E. Howie for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
|||
|
002
|
2023 | Browne | State | 2023-03-07 | 2023-09-08 [Oral Arguments] |
Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM err by deciding on its own initiative that Maryland courts should no longer adhere to the exclusionary approach to other-crimes evidence under Md. Rule 5-404(b), when that issue was not decided by the trial judge and was not raised, briefed, or argued by the parties on appeal? 2) If not, should this Court reject the ACM’s exclusionary approach to Md. Rule 5-404(b)? 3) Did ACM err by adopting the “doctrine of chances” and by applying that doctrine to this case? 4) In a trial for the abuse and murder of Petitioner’s girlfriend’s toddler, did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by allowing evidence relating to Petitioner’s previous Alford plea to child abuse resulting in the death of his own baby? 5) Does “due diligence” under Md. Rule 4-331(c) require defense attorneys to audit the contents of the State’s admitted exhibits before allowing the exhibits to go to the jury? 6) Where defense counsel relied on the prosecutor’s representations regarding the contents of the State’s exhibits, did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial, which was based on a discovery that videos pertaining to the case but not admitted into evidence had been present in the jury room during deliberations? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1892, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported) |
|
|
003
|
2023 | In re: M.P. | 2023-03-24 | 2023-09-08 [Oral Arguments] |
2023-09-08 [PC Order] |
Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As an issue of first impression, does the newly enacted Juvenile Justice Reform Act (“JJRA”), Md. Code Ann. § 3-8A-03 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, which establishes a minimum age of jurisdiction for the juvenile court, apply to cases pending at the time of the statute’s enactment? 2) As an issue of first impression, is an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of juvenile court jurisdiction immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1137, Sept. Term, 2022 (pending) |
|
|
065 Misc
|
2022 | In the Matter of A.C. | 2023-10-02 | Accomodations Review Committee appeal. |
|||
|
005
|
2023 | Riley Rev. Trust | Venice Beach Cit. Ass'n | 2023-06-15 | 2023-10-02 | Real Property – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by vacating and reversing an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Petitioner, given that the court (a) did not vacate the interlocutory order until the conclusion of a trial in which Petitioner had no reason to put on evidence concerning claims that were already adjudicated in its favor and (b) entered judgment in favor of Respondent because, according to the ACM, “the evidence at trial did not support” Petitioner’s claims? 2) Did the ACM abuse its discretion by directing the trial court to reconsider Respondent’s counter-complaint on remand, given that final judgment was entered against Respondent on its counter-complaint, Respondent didn’t note any cross-appeal from the judgment, and Respondent did not assert any error regarding the trial court’s judgment in its brief to the ACM? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1064, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) |
|
|
007
|
2023 | Syed | Lee, et al. | 2023-06-28 | 2023-10-05 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a lawfully entered nolle prosequi render moot an appeal alleging procedural violations at a hearing occurring prior to the nolle prosequi? 2) Does a victim’s representative, a non-party to a case, have the right to attend a vacatur hearing in-person or does remote attendance satisfy the right? 3) Was notice to the victim’s representative of the vacatur hearing sufficient where the State complied with all statutory and rules-based notice requirements? 4) Must a victim’s representative seeking reversal show prejudice on appeal? 5) Is a victim’s right to speak incorporated into the Vacatur Statute, Md. Code § 8-301.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article, where no party or entity other than the victim has an interest in challenging the evidence alleged to support vacatur? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1291, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |
|
|
006
|
2023 | Motor Vehicle Admin. | Usan | 2023-06-15 | 2023-11-03 | Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that reasonable grounds existed under Md. Code § 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article for a law enforcement officer to request a motorist to take a test for alcohol concentration, despite there being no odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath and a preliminary breath test result reflecting 0.00 blood alcohol content, but where the motorist was driving erratically and with indicia of intoxication to include horizontal gaze nystagmus and lack of coordination and balance? Circuit Court for Charles County, No. C-08-CV-22-000278 |
|
|
010
|
2023 | In the Matter of McCloy | 2023-08-11 | 2023-11-03 | Public Safety – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the Maryland State Police’s (“MSP”) denial of petitioner’s application to purchase a regulated firearm? 2) Did ACM err in finding that the relevant Md. statute to be considered for equivalence is the statue in effect at the time of the application, not the statute in effect at the time of the out-of-state conviction? 3) Did ACM err in adopting a “substantial evidence” test that fails to provide clear criteria for determining the equivalence of out-of-state offenses and affords unreasonable deference to the agency’s changing statutory interpretations? 4) Did ACM err in finding that a “reasonable mind” could accept the MSP’s conclusion, given that MSP’s conclusion has abruptly and inexplicably changed absent any changes to the relevant facts or law? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 673, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |
||
|
004
|
2023 | Westminster Management | Smith | 2023-06-15 | 2023-11-06 | Real Property – 1) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that the undefined term “rent” in Md. Code § 8-401 of the Real Property (“RP”) Article means only the periodic charge for use or occupancy of the premises, contrary to this Court’s precedent? 2) Does Maryland law allow a landlord and tenant to contract in the lease the manner in which the tenant’s payments for rent and other hard costs will be applied and allocated? 3) Does Maryland law allow a landlord to pass on its costs in initiating a summary ejectment action under RP § 8-401, including agent and summons fees, to a delinquent tenant under a lease? 4) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial courts denial of class certification, where the unique and individualized circumstances of the claims and defenses as to each putative claimant render this lawsuit unsuitable for class action treatment? 5) Whether Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on liability and declaratory judgments regarding their rights? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 2508, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion] |
|
|
008
|
2023 | Mitchell | State | 2023-07-26 | 2023-11-06 | Criminal Law – Should Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146 (2007) – which summarily rejected the request to ask voir dire questions regarding the credibility of children, like the one at issue in this case, that is: whether any prospective juror would be more or less likely to believe a witness merely because the witness is a child – be reconsidered in light of recent case law governing voir dire? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 560, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) |
|
|
009
|
2023 | Cunningham ex rel Gaines | Baltimore Cty. | 2023-08-11 | 2023-12-04 | Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err in holding that the law enforcement officer was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to petitioner’s innocent bystander’s substantive due process claim? 2) Does a party waive appellate rights in a second appeal following remand on an issue the trial court did not address in the proceedings prior to the first appeal? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 378, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) |
|
|
011
|
2023 | Petition of Md. Off. of People's Counsel | 2023-08-11 | 2023-12-04 | Public Utilities – 1) Should the Public Service Commission’s interpretation of the Merger Order be given the usual deference afforded Commission evidentiary findings, rather than reviewed in the light of the parties’ reasonable understanding of the Merger Order at the time it was issued? 2) Does an increase of $7.8 million in corporate costs post-merger comply with the Merger Order’s plain language, intent, and purpose that the merger produce “tangible financial benefits” in the form of a “reduction in distribution rates” for customers? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 755, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) |
||
|
012
|
2023 | Matthews | State | 2023-12-05 | DNA Appeal |