Argument Schedule -- April, 2014


September Term, 2013


Thursday, April 3, 2014:

Bar Admissions

No. 78 Christopher D. Hamilton, et al. v. Benjamin Kirson, et ux.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err by refusing to allow plaintiff’s expert witnesses to testify that the defendant’s property was a substantial contributing cause to plaintiff’s injurious lead exposure on the grounds that they did not sufficiently rule out other potential sources of lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence as to causation? 3) Is a Dow analysis applicable to a lead paint claim involving possible exposure at multiple properties?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Scott E. Nevin and John Amato, IV
Attorney for Respondent: Thomas W. Hale

No. 100  Candace Renee Alston, et al. v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Associates, et al.

Issues – Torts -1) By following its decision in West v. Rochkind, 212 Md.App. 164, 66 A.3d 1145 (2013), did CSA improperly undermine the common law principle that the law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence and direct evidence and that no greater degree of certainty is required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence? 2) Did CSA’s decision in West improperly change a Plaintiff’s burden of proof in a circumstantial evidence case from “preponderance of the evidence” to greater than “beyond a reasonable doubt?” 3) Does CSA’s holding improperly require a Plaintiff in a lead-paint case to prove that a given property was “the only possible explanation” for a Plaintiff’s injuries in order to make a circumstantial case?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Brian S. Brown and Saul E. Kerpelman
Attorney for Respondent: Thomas W. Hale

No. 90 Lori A. Robinette v. Luan Hunsecker

Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did the trial court err in granting a constructive trust to alienate pension plan benefits where the deceased agreed to transfer a portion of his pension to Respondent but all other claims, demands and interests were expressly waived?

Attorney for Petitioner: Laura N. Venezia
Attorney for Appellee: Brian E. Barkley

No. 102 (2011 Term)  Joy Friolo v. Douglas Frankel, et al.

Issues - Labor & Employment - (1) Whether the lower court’s approach to adjudicating shifted attorneys’ fees under wage payment & overtime statutes set forth by that court directly contravenes the public policies set forth in the wage payment & overtime statutes, misapprehends legislative intent & conflicts with this Court’s rulings in Friolo I and III & all other pertinent authorities? (2) Whether the lower court erred & contravened Friolo III in reducing fees for Friolo’’s counsel’s appellate work where counsel has been completely successful at the appellate stages of the case by referencing & applying the exact same percentage reduction it applied to the trial court? (3) Whether the lower court erred as to the pertinent facts resulting in a very severe reduction in its attorneys’ fees award under its applied mathematical formula? (4) Whether the lower court erred in the manner in which it adjudicated costs other than attorneys’ fees including the Master’s fee?

Attorney for Petitioner: Leizer Z. Goldsmith
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew J. Focht


Friday, April 4, 2014:

AG No. 87 (2012 Term)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Taiwo Agbaje

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Taiwo Agbaje

No. 79 David Springer v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Can the “business pursuits” exclusion in an insurance policy relieve an insurer of its duty to provide a defense to its insured when the claims alleged were not connected to the insured’s alleged business pursuits, and when the evidence about the insured’s business activity demonstrated that the insured had not engaged in such activity for approximately two years? 2) Can the “expected or intended” exclusion in an insurance policy relieve an insurer of its duty to provide a defense to its insured, when the claims against the insured are based on reckless conduct and not solely intentional conduct?

Attorney for Appellant: Leah C. Montesano
Attorney for Appellee: Thomas Patrick Ryan

No. 77 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. and Magothy River Assoc., Inc. v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC, et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did the Board of Appeals correctly determine that CBF lacked standing to participate in the variance proceedings? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the widely held judicial rule that the standing of similar parties will not be challenged if at least one party has standing does not apply in administrative proceedings? 3) Did CSA correctly refuse to determine whether Anne Arundel County law violates Md. Ann. Code Article 25A, § 5(U)? 4) Did the Board of Appeals correctly determine that Respondents have met their burden of proof and persuasion on the Critical Area variance standards of self-created hardship and minimum variance necessary to afford relief? 5) Was it proper for the Board of Appeals to grant a blanket variance of 3,325 sq. ft., and not provide a specific amount of impervious square footage for each variance requested? 6) Did CSA apply an incorrect standard with respect to whether the variance granted by the Board of Appeals was the minimum necessary to afford relief?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Jon A. Mueller and Paul J. Cucuzzella
Attorneys for Appellee: Robert J. Fuoco and Gregory J. Swain


Monday, April 7, 2014:

Misc. No. 28  In the Matter of the Application of Onikki Tennell Walker for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

AG No. 6 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael David Fraidin

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Gregory P. Johnson

No. 80  Danny C. Hoskins v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal.

Attorney for Appellant: Peter Rose
Attorney for Appellee: Robert Taylor, Jr.


Tuesday, April 8, 2014:

No. 65   Candace Megan Burns v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Does a defendant in a criminal trial have a constitutional, statutory and common law right to be present when the terms of a plea agreement are presented to and considered by the trial court?

Attorney for Petitioner: Nancy S. Forster
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan R. Dietrich

AG No. 2   Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robert John Greenleaf

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Robert John Greenleaf

No. 69 (2012 Term) Glenn Joseph Raynor v. State of Maryland

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?

Attorney for Petitioner: Byron L. Warnken
Attorney for Respondent: Robert Taylor, Jr.


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 April 8, 2014 the Court will recess until April 29, 2014.