Argument Schedule -- February 2013


September Term, 2012


Thursday, February 7, 2013:

Bar Admissions

No. 48  Joan J. Stickley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that Ins. Code § 19-504.1 does not apply to excess of umbrella policies? 2) Whether a personal liability umbrella policy that includes motor vehicle liability insurance constitutes "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance" as contemplated by Ins. Code § 19-504.1?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Gary R. Alexander and S. Whitney Cleaver
Attorney for Respondent: Michael J. Budow

No. 49  Jorge Appraicio v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Did the trial court err in answering a question from the jury about the lack of a police report and police testimony in evidence and the weight they should give to its absence by responding that they were to decide the case based on "what is in evidence", thereby potentially stopping the jury from considering the lack of that evidence in reaching its verdict?

Attorney for Petitioner: Piedad Gomez
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams

No. 51  William H. Mathews v. W.C. Pinkard & Co., Inc., etc., et al.

Issues - Corporations &Associations - 1) Did the trial court err in failing to apply either MD Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-203 or MD's discovery rule, which govern when a cause of action accrues, to Appellant's claims for violations of the MD Securities Act? 2) Did the trial court err in determining that the financial transactions at issue did not satisfy the MD Securities Act's definition of an "investment contract"? 3) Did the trial court err in its dismissal of Appellant's common law claims, including fraud and misrepresentation, because it failed to properly apply MD Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-203 and/or MD's discovery rule?

Attorney for Appellant: Thomas C. Costello
Attorney for Appellee: Matthew S. Sturtz

No. 50  Paul F. Kendall, et al. v. Howard County, Maryland

Issues - Election Law - 1) Did the trial court err in holding that the alleged denial by County officials of Petitioners' constitutional and statutory rights to referendum and petition did not provide the "particularized harm" or "concrete injury" necessary to give Petitioners standing to bring suit? 2) Did the trial court err in dismissing the case because Appellants had failed to join necessary parties?

Attorney for Petitioner: Susan B. Gray
Attorney for Respondent: Louis P. Ruzzi


Friday, February 8, 2013:

No. 47  Board of Directors of Cameron Grove Condominium, II, et al. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations

Issues - Administrative Law - 1) Whether the Agency's Appeal Board erred by requiring that Petitioners show evidence that thieves and vandals had gained illegal entry to the building before it could prohibit keys from being distributed to doors which were not secure? 2) Whether CSA correctly ruled that the Agency's Appeal Board had performed the balancing test required by MD's reasonable accommodation statute? 3) Whether the Agency's Appeal Board erred by ignoring the county Planning Board's Specific Design Plan, which required that a security system be installed on the doors in question?

Attorney for Petitioner: David C. Gardner
Attorneys for Respondent: Terrence J. Artis and Glendora C. Hughes

No. 54  In Re: Adoption of Sean M.

Issues - Family Law - 1) Whether a natural parent's failure to file a timely objection to a proposed independent adoption, as directed in a show cause order, constitutes an irrevocable consent to the adoption? 2) Whether the statutory scheme resulting in an irrevocable deemed consent to an independent adoption offends the due process rights of the parent?

Attorney for Petitioner: Philip J. Sweitzer
Attorney for Respondent: Thomas F. Ellis, III

No. 56  Jennifer Evans Dize, Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late William Smith Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots

Issues - Labor & Employment - 1) Whether CSA's interpretation of a threshold requirement for seaman status under the federal Jones Act has placed Maryland in conflict with with US Supreme Court precedent? 2) Whether the trial court applied an overly restrictive standard to the issue of whether Petitioner had a "connection to Respondent's fleet of vessels in navigation", thereby excluding Petitioner's time spent performing duties such as maintenance work on the fleet?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael H. Bereston
Attorney for Respondent: James W. Bartlett


Monday, February 11, 2013:

No. 55  Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Angela Brock

Issue - Statutory Law - Whether an entity in possession of a promissory note indorsed in blank – the most common type of indorsement for thousands of notes owned by mortgaged-backed security trusts – is not a holder and is merely a non-holder in possession, in conflict with Title 3 of the Maryland UCC & a misinterpretation of Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232 (2011)?

Attorney for Petitioner: Gary C. Tepper
Attorney for Respondent: John K. Hautman

No. 43  Michael David Gordon v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Whether, and if so, under what circumstances, an individual who presents a driver's license in response to a request for identification by law enforcement manifests an adoption or belief in the truth of information contained in the license for purposes of the hearsay exception for adoptive admissions set forth at Maryland Rule 5-803(a)(2)? 2) Was the detective's testimony regarding the date of birth on Petitioner's driver's license admissible under the public record hearsay exception set forth at Maryland Rule 5-803(b)(8)? 3) Did Petitioner waive his challenge to the admissibility of the testimony under the public records exception?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorneys for Respondent: Todd W. Hesel

No. 44  Maryland Economic Development Corporation v. Montgomery County, Maryland

Issue - Taxation - Does the statutory exemption of the MD Economic Development Corporation (MEDCO) from "any requirement to pay taxes or assessments on its activities" apply to recordation taxes on deeds of trust granted by MEDCO as part of an economic development project?

Attorney for Petitioner: Diane Festino Schmitt
Attorneys for Respondent: Scott R. Foncannon


Tuesday February 12, 2013:

AG No. 12  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joel Jay Fader

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Joseph Murtha

No. 52  Anthony Tyler v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the lower court correctly conclude that Petitioner waived his claim of a Rule 4-246(b) violation, and that because his jury trial waiver was made knowingly & voluntarily, the lack of an express finding to that effect by the trial court constituted harmless error?

Attorney for Petitioner: David P. Kennedy
Attorney for Respondent: Jeremy M. McCoy

No. 46  Jeffrey Robert Valonis v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court's statement "We note the waiver of the right to trial by jury" satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-246(b) that before accepting a waiver of jury trial the trial court determine and announce on the record that the waiver was knowing and voluntary? 2) If not, did Petitioner waive his claim about the trial court's announcement by failing to object, or, in the alternative, was the error harmless?

Attorney for Petitioner: David P. Kennedy
Attorney for Respondent: Jessica V. Carter


On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.

After February 12, 2013 the Court will recess until March 7, 2013.