Argument Schedule -- June, 2014


September Term, 2013


Wednesday, June 4, 2014:

Bar Admissions

AG No. 88 (2012 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Vaughn Miles Mungin

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: William C. Brennan

Misc No. 11 NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc., et al. v. Soren Carlsen

Certified question from U.S. District Court of Maryland, Northern Division

Question - Is the Maryland Finder's Fee Act a statutory "specialty" law with a statute of limitations of twelve years under Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Sec. 5-102(a)(6)?

Attorneys for Appellant: John Thomas Prisbe, James Dunbar
Attorney for Appellee: Scott C. Borison

No. 96  Baltimore County, Maryland, et al. v. Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4

Issue – County Government – Whether the trial court erred when it issued a writ of mandamus requiring Baltimore County to designate a third party neutral to receive and investigate FOP’s complaint of an unfair labor practice regarding a change to personnel policy set forth in the County Personnel Manual, which, by definition is not subject to negotiation?

Attorney for Petitioner: James J. Nolan, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew Clash-Drexler

No. 93  Motor Vehicle Administration v. Joshua Salop

Issues – Transportation – 1) Did the circuit court exceed the scope of its authority by ordering the MVA to remove a reported out-of-state speeding conviction from Respondent’s driving record where MD’s adoption of the Driver License Compact mandates that MVA maintain a record of each out-of-state conviction reported by states parties to the Compact and MD law provides no right to judicial review of the MVA’s maintenance of those driving records? 2) Did the circuit court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion when it used its revisory power under Rule 2-535(b) to correct a non-jurisdictional “mistake,” given this Court’s long-standing precedent confining a circuit court’s authority under that Rule to correcting only jurisdictional errors? 3) Did the circuit court exceed the permissible scope of review by reviewing the underlying validity of DE’s reported conviction, in light of the plain language in Transp. § 16-708 strictly limiting judicial review of reported out-of-state convictions?

Attorney for Petitioner: Damon L. Bell
Attorney for Respondent: Paul T. Stein


Thursday, June 5, 2014:

No. 94  Dehn Motor Sales, LLC, et al. v. Joseph Schultz, et al.

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioners’ replevin action did not substantially comply with the notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act even though the City Solicitor’s office litigated the replevin action for three years? 2) Did CSA err in its conclusion that the Respondent police officers were constitutionally justified in seizing 67 vehicles without a warrant or court order because of an alleged emergency when that fact was disputed by Petitioners?

Attorney for Petitioner: John B. Sinclair
Attorney for Respondent: Kara L. Lynch

No. 98  Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Carla Adam

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Under MD Law, is there a distinction between a lifetime employment contract and a “continuous for-cause contract,” both terminable for any reason by employee and only for cause by employer, such that each should have different amounts and degrees of proof and different consideration required? 2) Where an employment contract contains no provision addressing duration of employment, must the contract be clear, specific and definite that the parties intended to create continuous and indefinite employment, terminable only for cause? 3) Where an employment contract contains no provision addressing the duration of employment, does a “for-cause” provision transform the contract to one providing employment for life where there is no “special consideration” to establish a contract for lifetime employment? 4) Is this Court’s dicta in Towson University v. Conte, 384 Md. 68, 862 A.2d 941 (2004) suggesting that a “just cause” provision transforms “at-will” employment into employment terminable only for cause inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Suburban Hospital v. Dwiggins, 324 Md. 294, 596 A.2d 1069 (1991) that employment contracts of an indefinite duration create “at-will” employment and remain so even if that agreement sets forth some bases that provide the employer cause for termination? 5) Does the presence of a “for cause” provision in an employment contract transform at-will employment to lifetime employment terminable only for cause?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Patricia M. Weaver and Glenn M. Cooper
Attorney for Respondent: Harry R. Silver

No. 89  Richard A. Elms v. Renewal By Anderson

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a Labor & Empl. Art. § 9-508 (“statutory employer”) analysis must precede a common law employment analysis? 2) Did the Workers’ Compensation Commission misconstrue the law as it applied to the facts under Labor & Empl. Art. § 9-745 when it determined that Petitioner was an independent contractor?

Attorney for Petitioner: Stephen S. Winegrad
Attorney for Respondent: Michael L. Dailey


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 June 5, 2014 the Court will recess until September 3, 2014.