SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2017
Thursday, April 5, 2018:
AG. No. 13 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. William Michael Jacobs
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy Sette Paulick
Attorney for Respondent: William Michael Jacobs
No. 76 C&B Construction, Inc. v. Jeffrey Dashiell, et al.
Issues – Real Property – 1) Does §9-204(a) of the Real Property Article, the Maryland Construction Trust Fund Statute, limit its application to projects covered by the Maryland Mechanics’ Lien law and Little Miller Act even though the plain language of the statute as a whole and §9-204(a) specifically contain no such limitation? 2) Did the trial court err in granting judgment to Respondents despite evidence showing that funds received by the general contractor were earmarked for payment to Petitioners?
Attorney for Petitioner: Howard G. Goldberg
Attorneys for Respondent: Albert G. Allen, III, Albert G. Allen, II and Steven W. Rakow
No. 65 Brian Tate v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Was Petitioner’s guilty plea record sufficient to conclude he understood the nature and elements of first-degree murder, despite the fact that he was a minor with diminished mental capacity and no one addressed the nature and elements of the crime on the record?
Attorney for Petitioner: Booth Ripke
Attorney for Respondent: Edward Kelley
No. 70 In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of H.W.
Issues – Family Law – 1) Did CSA improperly proscribe juvenile courts from considering factors critical to the determination of a child’s best interests when it held that, in determining whether to terminate parental rights, juvenile courts may not consider either the emotional effects of a change in custody upon the child or the stability and certainty of the child’s future? 2) In determining that it is in the child’s best interests to terminate the parental rights of an incarcerated parent whom the child has never met, did the juvenile court permissibly consider the following factors (1) the potential emotional effect on the child of a change of custody; (2) the instability and uncertainty of the child’s future in the custody of the parent; and (3) the stability and certainty of the child’s future in the custody of the prospective adoptive parents?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ann M. Sheridan
Attorneys for Respondent: Kiran Iyer and Kristin Fon Lim
No. 66 SVF Riva Annapolis, LLC, et al. v. Moreen Elizabeth Gilroy, et al.
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA usurp the role of the legislature when, under the guise of statutory construction, it remedied a purported defect in the “use and possession exception” (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-108(d)(2)(i)) to Md.’s statute of repose? 2) Did CSA errr in insisting on an expansive interpretation of § 5-108(d)(2)(i) that conflicts with this Court’s prior, narrowly-tailored interpretation? 3) Did CSA err in broadly interpreting one exception to Md.’s statute of repose, effectively nullifying the statute as set forth in § 5-108(a)? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant the respondents’ motions for summary judgment based upon § 5-108(d)(2)(i)? 5) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant respondents’ motions for summary judgment even though alternative grounds existed to affirm summary judgment solely based upon questions of law?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Kimberly Lynn Limbrick and Stephen J. Marshall
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan Patrick Richie
AG No. 86 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Steven Anthony Lang and Olayemi Isaac Falusi
Attorney for Petitioner: Ebtehaj Kalantar
Attorney for Respondent: John O. Iweanoge
No. 74 Julius Devincentz, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err by prohibiting a defense witness from testifying that the complainant was an untruthful person? 2) Did the trial court err by disallowing a defense witness’s testimony that during an argument he observed between the complainant and the Petitioner, the complainant threatened to get Petitioner in trouble? 3) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was required to make a formal proffer regarding the substance and relevance of the evidence at issue in order to preserve for appellate review claims (1) and (2) above, and that the exception to the proffer requirement did not apply, despite it being clear from the record what the testimony of the defense witness would have established if it had been admitted?
Attorney for Petitioner: Piedad Gomez
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah P. Pritzlaff
AG. No. 14 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Benjamin N. Ndi
Attorneys for Petitioner: Amy Sette Paulick and Ebtehaj Kalantar
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin N. Ndi
AG No. 2 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeneba Jalloh (Ghatt)
Attorney for Petitioner: Ebtehaj Kalantar
Attorney for Respondent: Jeneba Jalloh (Ghatt)
No. 73 In Re: J.C.N.
Issues – Health General – 1) Did CSA err when it found that Petitioner’s challenge to the involuntary admission was moot? 2) Did CSA err when it concluded that the hospital complied with the 10 day deadline for the involuntary admission hearing and that dismissal was inappropriate? 3) Did CSA err when it found substantial support in the record for the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Petitioner presented a danger to the life or safety of herself or others?
Attorney for Petitioner: Wyatt Feeler
Attorney for Respondent: Douglas C. Meister
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 10, 2018, the Court will recess until May 2, 2018.
BESSIE M. DECKER