Granted January 18, 2013

The Brethren Mutual Insurance Company v. Ember Louise Buckley - Case No. 10, September Term, 2013

Issue - Insurance Law - Did CSA err in ruling that respondent's breach of contract claim against petitioner for uninsured motorist benefits was preserved despite the fact that she executed a release that, under its plain language, released all claims arising out of her accident against "all persons, firms or corporations" because such a global release complied with the settlement procedures set out in MD. Code Ann. Ins. § 19-511?

Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Jocelyn A. Farrar - Case No. 102, September Term, 2012
Judge Adkins did not participate in the consideration of this matter.

Issues - Torts - 1) Does this Court's multi-factor test for determining when duties enforceable in tort are owed to third parties apply to product liability claims and, if so, do product manufacturers have a legal duty to warn household residents of the risks of exposure to toxic materials carried home by workers who did not use the product in question but were exposed indirectly as bystanders? 2) What is the minimum threshold of sufficient evidence that satisfies Balbos' "frequency, proximity, and regularity" test for substantial-factor causation?

In re: Ryan W. - Case No. 101, September Term, 2013

Issue - Juvenile Law-CINA - Did CSA err in directing the juvenile court, on remand, to revise it's monetary award against the State by requiring the Department to deposit funds into a foster child's trust account because, as CSA had already concluded, the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to enter such an order and because such an order is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity?

Taquez Price v. State of Maryland - Case No. 9, September Term, 2013

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Should petitioner's inculpatory statement at a post-indictment initial appearance, made in direct response to the trial court's question about appropriate bond, have been suppressed? 2) Did the trial court violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), by continuing to conduct a hearing and questioning petitioner after petitioner stated he had an attorney and provided his attorney's name to the court? 3) Does a defendant have a statutory and Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a post-indictment initial appearance and bond review? 4) Did CSA err in ruling that petitioner's statutory and Sixth Amendment right to counsel arguments were waived? 5) Was petitioner's direct response to the trial court's question about bond too ambiguous and equivocal to be admissible as a matter of MD evidentiary law? 6) Was petitioner's Edwards v. Arizona argument regarding the bail review hearing properly preserved for appellate review?

Emmanuel Ford Robinson v. State of Maryland - Case No. 11, September Term, 2013

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Where a co-defendant who entered a plea of guilty testified as a defense witness at petitioner's trial, did the trial court err in permitting the State, in the guise of cross-examination, to read into the record a statement of facts proffered at the co-defendant's guilty plea hearing but never adopted by the co-defendant? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in preemptively giving the jury a "scientific or investigative techniques" instruction where defense counsel merely stated in opening statement that the lack of physical evidence demonstrated the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and where defense counsel never mischaracterized the law?

Roderiques Sawyers v. Benno Lebovits - Case No. 7, September Term, 2013

Issues - Torts - 1) Did the trial court err when it granted appellee's motion to exclude appellants' expert witnesses and for summary judgment and refused to allow those experts to testify that appellee's property was a substantial contributing cause of appellants' injurious lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to appellee solely on the basis of the excluded opinions of the experts as to causation, when no expert causation testimony was required in view of all of the other exposure evidence produced below? 3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it granted appellee's renewed motion for summary judgment and rejected the rulings on the same issue of two other circuit judges which denied prior motions and, in particular, which declined to exclude the testimony of the causation expert?

State of Maryland v. Stanley Goldberg, et al. - Case No. 8, September Term, 2013

Issue - Real Property - Is legislation substituting one remedy for failure of a ground lease tenant to pay rent (lien and foreclosure) for another (ejectment) a permissible alteration of remedies that does not impermissibly abrogate vested rights of ground lease owners?

Antwon Wallace v. City Homes, Inc. - Case No. 6, September Term, 2013

Issues - Torts - 1) Did the trial court err when it granted appellee's motion to exclude appellant's causation experts and refused to allow those experts to testify that appellee's property was a substantial contributing cause of appellant's injurious lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court err when it excluded the expert's testimony and lab reports as to the presence of lead-based paint at appellee's property? 3) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to appellee solely on the basis of the excluded opinions of the experts as to causation based on the court's assessment that those experts did not sufficiently rule out other potential sources of lead exposure?

Granted January 23, 2013

Jennifer Vasco v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund - Case No. 103, September Term, 2012

Issue - Insurance Law - Whether a woman who lives with a man, but is not legally married to him, is considered a family member pursuant to Insurance Code § 20-601(b)(2)(i)?