SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2016
Thursday, June 1, 2017:
AG No. 87 In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Larry Jason Feldman
Attorneys for Petitioner: Kathleen H. Meredith and Stephan Y. Brennan
Attorney for Respondent: Raymond A. Hein
No. 69 Electrical General Corp. et al. v. Michael L. LaBonte
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did the previously determined finding that the Respondent sustained a subsequent intervening accident bar any further liability of the Employer and Insurer for workers’ compensation benefits due to a prior work injury? 2) Did the trial court err in allowing the jury to consider whether the Respondent sustained a subsequent intervening accident to his back because litigation of that issue was precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel? 3) Did the trial court err in submitting the jury question of whether the Respondent’s back condition was causally related to the work injury because the question was insufficient to resolve the factual disputes between the parties and improperly shifted the burden of proof to Employer and Insurer? 4) Did the trial court err in allowing the jury to decide issues that were not previously decided by the Workers’ Compensation Commission?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Lawrence G. Giambelluca and Julie D. Murray
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin T. Boscolo
No. 85 Richard Ceccone v. Carroll Home Services, LLC
Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Did the trial court err by dismissing the case due to a consumer contract’s time limitation clause where that clause contradicts the Statute of Limitations in Md. Code Ann, Courts & Judicial Proceedings, 5-101?
Attorney for Petitioner: Richard Ceccone and Anthony J. May
Attorneys for Respondent: Adam S. Hare and Michelle Mitchell
No. 87 Sage Title Group, LLC v. Robert Roman
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in creating an “escrow account” exception to the rule against conversion claims involving comingled funds? 2) If an employee violates company policy without breaking the law, is a later serious crime foreseeable to the employer? 3) Must the doctrine of unclean hands/in pari delicto, which is a question for the court, be invoked in a Rule 2-519 motion before submission to the jury? 4) Can a defendant in a conversion claim for money avoid liability with a “commingling” defense if that defendant was entrusted with specific, identifiable funds and agreed with the plaintiff to place those funds in an escrow account to which only plaintiff would have access? 5) Was CSA correct to find that expert testimony was necessary to prove Respondent’s negligence claim, where Petitioner wrongfully transferred Respondent’s money to third parties without Respondent’s authority? 6) Was CSA correct to find that Petitioner preserved for review its argument that its employee’s conduct was not foreseeable and, therefore, not within the scope of his employment, when no such argument was made at any time before Petitioner’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict?
Attorney for Petitioner: Steven M. Klepper
Attorneys for Respondent: Ronald A. Baradel and Tucker N. Meneely
No. 93 Ann McGeehan v. Michael McGeehan
Issue – Family Law – Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s determination that the parties’ oral agreement, with consideration, that property deemed Wife’s sole and separate property did not constitute a “valid agreement” under the requirements of Family Law § 8201(e)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Mitchell Mirviss
Attorney for Respondent: Allen Kruger
No. 96 Schneider Electric Buildings Critical Systems, Inc. v. Western Surety Company
Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Whether the surety on a performance bond issued for a subcontract is bound by an arbitration clause set forth in the subcontract where the bond expressly incorporates, and states that the surety is jointly and severally bound for the performance of, the subcontract?
Attorney for Petitioner: Mark S. Dachille
Attorney for Respondent: Patrick J. Madigan
No. 97 Natasha Burak v. Mark Burak, et al.
Issues – Family Law – 1) May grandparents intervene in a custody dispute between parents to seek custody of their grandchild before there has been an adjudication of the unfitness of the custodial parents? 2) May the “exceptional circumstances” test set forth by this Court in Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172 (1977) be used to take custody away from a biological parent with whom the child has lived for his entire life? 3) May a parent be required to pay child support to grandparents, and if so, may such child support be awarded without consideration of the financial resources of the grandparents?
Attorney for Petitioner: John A. Flyger
Attorney for Respondent: Steven J. Gaba
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 2, 2017, the Court will recess until September 6, 2017.
BESSIE M. DECKER