Petitions for Writ of Certiorari --September 2012


September Term, 2012


Denied September 7, 2012

Parrott v. McDonough - Pet. Docket No. 373

Granted September 21, 2012

Hunt v. Aberdeen Proving Ground Federal Credit Union - Case No. 67, September Term, 2012

Issues – Real Property – (1) Did CSA err in holding that foreclosure proceedings were not a foreseeable result of Aberdeen's failure to wire money to the Petitioners' mortgage company? (2) Did the trial court err in calculating damages based on the value of the property at the foreclosure sale as opposed to the fair market value of the property?

Lindsay, et al. v. Annapolis Roads Property Owners Association, et al. - Case No. 63, September Term, 2012

Issues – Real Property – (1) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat may be created without an express reference to the plat? (2) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat is created when the plat creates a strip of land but does not contain any words that demonstrate the existence of easement rights over the strip? (3) Whether an easement appurtenant to an unimproved lot may be used by the owner of other improved lots that are forever merged into the lot with the easement appurtenant?

Long Green Valley Association, et al. v. Bellevale Farms, Inc, et al. - Case No. 65, September Term, 2012

Issue – Environmental Law – Whether the grant of a conservation easement to the State creates a charitable trust such that interested third parties have standing to file an action seeking to enforce that easement when the State has failed to do so?

Jose F. Lopez v. State of Maryland - Case No. 61, September Term, 2012 (petition and conditional cross-petition)

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Is the defense of laches available to the State in post-conviction cases, even though pursuant to Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27 § 645A(e) an inmate is entitled to file a petition "at any time"? (2) Assuming the defense of laches is available in this case, did the post-conviction court err in ruling that the defense of laches applied? (3) Did CSA correctly hold that the doctrine of laches applies to post-conviction proceedings relating to convictions pre-dating October 1, 1995? (4) Did CSA err in concluding that the record lacked sufficient evidence of laches? (5) Did CSA err in remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the defense of laches applied after it had concluded that the State had failed meet its burden to prove either of the two prongs of the laches defense?

Robert Oku v. State of Maryland - Case No. 59, September Term, 2012

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Whether Petitioner's right to a de novo appeal of his District Court conviction under MD Code § 12-401 of the Courts & Jud. Proc. Art. was violated when defendant's testimony when defendant's testimony from that trial was admitted into evidence in his circuit court trial? (2) Whether Petitioner's due process rights, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. 24 of the MD Declaration of Rights, were violated when petitioner's testimony from the District Court trial was admitted into evidence in his circuit court trial, thus denying him the full benefit of the process that must be afforded him under the de novo system?

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp. v. Beebe-Lee - Case No. 64, September Term, 2012

Issues – Insurance Law – (1) Did CSA err in affirming that Insurance Article of the MD Code provides PCIGC with only a limited right to contest settlements entered into between claimants and insolvent insurers? (2) Did CSA err in affirming that PCIGC is liable to claimants for twice its statutory limit of liability on a claim for a single bodily injury where the insolvent insurer provided both primary coverage and umbrella coverage?

Glenn Joseph Raynor v. State of Maryland - Case No. 69, September Term, 2012 (petition and conditional cross-petition)

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Whether, under the Fourth Amendment & Art. 26 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, a citizen maintains an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the DNA found in genetic material involuntarily and knowingly deposited through ordinary biological processes? (2) Whether, under the Fourth Amendment & Art. 26 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, the determination of an individual's expectation of privacy requires consideration of the privacy interest in the information obtained, & not just the privacy interest in the place in which it was found? (3) Was the collection and testing of Petitioner's perspiration a limited intrusion justified by reasonable suspicion? (4) Even if not constitutionally reasonable, does law enforcement conduct in this case not justify application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule?

State of Maryland v. Tyres Kenard Taylor - Case No. 60, September Term, 2012 (petition and conditional cross-petition)

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Did CSA incorrectly apply MD Rule 4-215 where there was no request by the defendant for discharge of trial counsel and the only issue before the trial court was an administrative request for a continuance? (2) Did CSA incorrectly construe MD Rule 4-215 when it found that the trial court violated the rule? (3) Did the lower court violate Respondent's constitutional right to representation by counsel of his choice?

Town of LaPlata v. Faison-Rosewick, LLC, et al. - Case No. 68, September Term, 2012 (petition and conditional cross-petition)

Issues – Election Law – (1) Did the trial court correctly determine that the Town's signature validation procedures, published two days before the signature pages were filed, were untimely, ultra vires, facially-invalid, improperly "abandoned" by the Town, & that the referendum process was tainted by those errors? (2) Because under Art. 23A, §19(g) the referendum petition, & under §19(j) the ballot, cannot include the three Non-Referable Resolutions, did the Town err in permitting verification of signatures to proceed on the legally insufficient pages & including the Non-Referable Resolutions on the proposed ballot, while failing to make the mandatory finding that the pages complied with Art. 23A, §19? (3) Given the lack of detail in Art. 23A, §19(g) regarding verification of signatures on municipal referenda, and in light of Cumberland and Tyler, should State-based common law be applied to protect the integrity of this municipal referendum process? (4) Can the Town of LaPlata challenge its own Resolutions on this appeal under the principles set forth in Burning Tree? (5) Did the trial court properly have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's challenge? (6) What is the appropriate standard of appellate review? (7) Did the trial court correctly conclude that the LaPlata town manager acted beyond his authority when he, rather than the Town Council, published the criteria he applied to verify and validate petition signatures and he did so two days before deadline for the submission of those signatures? (8) Even if the town manager acted beyond his authority, does that ultra vires act thereby warrant invalidating the petition, precluding the referendum election, & thereby punishing the citizens of LaPlata who were blameless in the matter? (9) Whether the referendum petition & ballot are invalid because, in addition to seeking a referendum on the Town Council's annexation resolution, they also mention three other resolutions, all inextricably related to the annexation resolution? (10) Whether, despite the clear inapplicability of the MD Election Code to the municipal referendum at issue, the court should have invalidated the referendum because LaPlata's petition verification procedures did not meet the requirements set forth in the Election Code? (11) Since Art. 23A § 19(g) imposed on the Town manager the mandatory duty to verity signatures on an annexation petition without any guidance as to how to perform that duty, does the Town manager have implied authority to use any reasonable means to fulfill that duty, including the promulgation of written procedures, without the need for authorizing legislation by the Town Council? (12) Since those written procedures were intended to assist the Town manager in the verification of annexation referenda petitions, did the promulgation of those procedures two days before the petition for referendum was submitted violate any due process rights of Plaintiffs or the public at large? (13) Should this Court apply MD common law relating to referendum petitions, developed under the Election Law Art., to municipal annexation referenda when the Election Law Art. expressly excludes from its scope elections conducted and petitions filed under Art. 23A §19?

Turner v. Hastings - Case No. 65, September Term, 2012

Issues – Torts – (1) Did CSA err in vacating an award of damages where the portion of the verdict concerning damages had not been announced in open court? (2) Did the trial court have the power to correct what it saw as an inconsistent verdict?

Zei v. Maryland Transit Administration - Case No. 62, September Term, 2012

Issue – Statutory Interpretation – Did CSA err in holding that a bus operator's failure to meet federal DOT safety standards rendered him unqualified as a matter of law for an MTA bus operator position?

Denied September 24, 2012

Barber, Rahymeen J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 254
Bereska, George John, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 228 and conditional cross-petition
Briggs v. Brown, In his Official Capacity - Pet. Docket No. 219
Chopra Energy, Inc. v. Kalfas - Pet. Docket No. 161
Davis, Larry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 225
Douglas, Derrien v. State - Pet. Docket No. 246
Falls Road Community Ass'n, Inc. v. Maryvale Preparatory School, Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 244
Golden v. Phillip - Pet. Docket No. 240
Hinton v. MCT Federal Credit Union - Pet. Docket No. 125
Hinton, Raymond v. State - Pet. Docket No. 231
Isbell v. Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg, Eig & Cooper, Chartered - Pet. Docket No. 232
Jemsek v. Md. Board of Physicians - Pet. Docket No. 233
Kemp, James Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 592 (September Term, 2011)
Kenney v. Midland Funding, LLC - Pet. Docket No. 247
King v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City - Pet. Docket No. 234
Kissi v. Bromberg - Pet. Docket No. 248
Lattman v. Norbeck Country Club - Pet. Docket No. 126
London Insurance Agency v. State - Pet. Docket No. 171
Lyles, Francisco v. State - Pet. Docket No. 268
Lyles, Jerome v. State - Pet. Docket No. 243
Prioleau, Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 242
Sarpong v. Fairwood Office Park, LLC - Pet. Docket No. 224
Shing v. Antwerpen Motorcars, Ltd. - Pet. Docket No. 187
State v. White, Dameon - Pet. Docket No. 238
Strickland v. Md. Dept. of Human Resources - Pet. Docket No. 397
Taylor v. Baltimore City Police - Pet. Docket No. 251
Tetso, Dennis J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 261
Trout v. Rouse - Pet. Docket No. 223
Ward v. McCarthy - Pet. Docket No. 235
Wetzelberger v. Dore - Pet. Docket No. 253