PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2020
Granted January 6, 2021
RDC Melanie Drive, LLC v. Mark R. Eppard, et al. - Case No. 48, September Term, 2020
Issue – 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?
Town of Riverdale Park v. Mamoun K. Ashkar, et al. - Case No. 49, September Term, 2020
Issues – 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?
Denied January 6, 2021
Bartenfelder v. Bartenfelder - Pet. Docket No. 402
Denied January 29, 2021
Alston, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 206
Andrews, Jeff Sean v. State - Pet. Docket No. 358
Black, Colin Sime v. State - Pet. Docket No. 364
Byrd, Avon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 354
Columbia Realty Venture v. H.M.C., Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 346
Elbaum v. Google, Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 349
Floyd, Shennika v. State - Pet. Docket No. 355
Fulda v. Consolidated Fountainview - Pet. Docket No. 344
Gogna v. O'Sullivan - Pet. Docket No. 357
Hall, Ajee v. State - Pet. Docket No. 359
Johnson, Darius v. State - Pet. Docket No. 368
Jones, Stephen B., Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 370
Makela v. Mid-Atlantic Waterproofing of Md. - Pet. Docket No. 341
Mayne v. Reed - Pet. Docket No. 372
McCray v. Driscoll - Pet. Docket No. 367
McNair v. State - Pet. Docket No. 360
Melki v. Samaha - Pet. Docket No. 363
Miller v. Martindill - Pet. Docket No. 348
Mirabile v. Leiter - Pet. Docket No. 366
Newport v. O'Sullivan - Pet. Docket No. 352
Pizarro, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 373
Pope v. Pope - Pet. Docket No. 356
Putman and Putman v. Wilson Homes and Wilson - Pet. Docket No. 374
Richardson v. Md. Department of Health - Pet. Docket No. 365
Underwood v. White - Pet. Docket No. 345