PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2007
Granted July 29, 2008
Neverdon, Russell A. v. Attorney Grievance Commission - Case No. 57, Sept. Term 2008.
ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DECIDING TO DENY THE MOTION TO QUASH THE COMMISSION'S SUBPOENA WITHOUT A HEARING?
In Re: Deontay J. - Case No. 58, September Term 2009.
ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - CINA - MAY A JUVENILE COURT FIND A CHILD IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE AND COMMIT HIM TO THE CUSTODY OF A LOCAL DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE PARENTS' NEGLECT OF FIVE SIBLINGS, WHICH RESULTED IN CINA FINDINGS AS TO ALL OF THE CHILDREN, AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO TWO OF THEM?
Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. Halle Development, Inc., et al. - Case No. 59, September Term 2008. (Petition granted and the cross-petition was denied.)
ISSUE - ZONING - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO REMAND CASE TO THE PZO FOR NEW DECISIONS UNDER THE CORRECT STANDARD OF LAW ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE STATUTORY TIME PERIOD FOR MAKING THE DECISIONS HAD EXPIRED AND CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD VESTED RIGHTS IN REFUNDS TOTALING $4.7 MILLION PLUS INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT?
Denied July 28, 2008
Addison v. Satterwhite - Pet. Docket No. 525
Clark v. O'Malley - Pet. Docket No. 237*
Colombo Bank v. Kelly - Pet. Docket No. 170*
Curry, Mack v. State - Pet. Docket No. 169*
Fraction v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 148*
Galasso v. Baltimore County - Pet. Docket No. 213 *
Garrity v. Fassanella - Pet. Docket No. 155*
Gatewood, Antoine L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 125
*
Goldman v. Cooper - Pet. Docket No. 196 *
Henderson v. Newhouse - Pet. Docket No. 164*
Holmes v. Logan - Pet. Docket No. 543
In Re: Adoption of Michael F. - Pet. Docket No. 151*
In Re: Elrich S. - Pet. Docket No. 191*
In Re: Teagan B. - Pet. Docket No. 152*
Jackson, Dontae v. State - Pet. Docket No. 171*
Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 157*
Jordan, Wayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 166*
Kendall and Martin v. Howard County - Pet. Docket No. 161*
Klinger-de Arriz v. De Arriz - Pet. Docket No. 199
*
McCrea, Johnny E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 146*
Miller v. Baltimore County Police - Pet. Docket No. 160*
Moody v. CDG Management - Pet. Docket No. 147*
Nichols v. Board of Education - Pet. Docket No. 165*
Pennington, Joshua Ray v. State - Pet. Docket No. 150*
Petty, Robert W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 21* (motion for reconsideration)
Schislerr, Carroll L. Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 163*
Uhlfelder v. Garfield - Pet. Docket No. 154*
Watts, Alexander E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 167*
Wise< Guy M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 145*
Witherspoon, Winfred v. State - Pet. Docket No. 174*
Wychie, Herbert v. State - Pet. Docket No. 153*
* September Term 2008.
Granted July 23 , 2008
Kenneth Martin Stachowski, Jr. v. State of Maryland - Case No. 52, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHERE A CONVICTION IS ENTERED BY A GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCE IS IMPOSED AND SUSPENDED IN FAVOR OF PROBATION, MAY A TRIAL JUDGE AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION, ORDER THE DEFENDANT PAY RESTITUTION ARISING FROM AN UNRELATED CASE?
Kyeron Michael Church v. State of Maryland - Case No. 53, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN RULING THAT THE STATE DID NOT NEED TO DIVULGE THE EXACT LOCATION FROM WHICH AN OFFICER HAD OBSERVED THE ALLEGED NARCOTICS ACTIVITY?
Quinton Richmond, et al. v. The District Court of Maryland et al. - Case No. 54, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN RULING THAT UNDER THE MD PUBLIC DEFENDER ACT, INDIGENT DEFENDANTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT INITIAL BAIL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DISTRICT COURT COMMISSIONERS?
Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission v. Town of Washington Grove, Maryland - Case No. 55, September Term 2008. (Petition and Cross-Petition granted).
ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - EMINENT DOMAIN - WHETHER THE MD DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS APPLIES TO A CONDEMNATION ACTION?
Joan L. Floyd, et al v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. - Case No. 56, September Term 2008. (Petition and Cross-Petition granted).
ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT MAY CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS ARTICLE INSTEAD OF THE MORE STRICT COMMON LAW QUORUM REQUIREMENTS OF A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY?