SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2020
Thursday, December 3, 2020:
AG No. 92 (2019 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Nancy Theresa Lord
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica M. Boltz
Attorney for Respondent: Nancy Theresa Lord
No. 24 State of Maryland v. Oliver Miller
Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court violated Respondent’s right to confrontation by admitting the results of DNA testing and analysis through a witness who did not author the report of DNA testing and analysis, but who served as its technical reviewer?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jer Welter
Attorney for Respondent: Samuel Feder
No. 19 James Matthew Leidig v. State of Maryland
Issues – Constitutional Law – Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it admitted DNA and serological evidence through a witness who did not perform the analysis of the crime scene evidence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Jer Welter
Friday, December 4, 2020:
Nos. 15, 16, & 17 State of Maryland v. Karon Sayles, State of Maryland v. Bobby Jamar Johnson, State of Maryland v. Dalik Daniel Oxely
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA wrongly conclude that a jury has the power to nullify the verdict and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when, in response to a jury note, it told the jury that it could not resort to jury nullification? 2) If the trial court abused its discretion when it responded to the jury’s inquiries concerning jury nullification, did CSA wrongly conclude that this error prejudiced Respondent?
Attorney for Petitioner: Karinna M. Rossi
Attorneys for Respondent: Kristin C. Tracy and Kenneth E. McPherson
No. 18 Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v. Curtis J. Timm, et al.
Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Did CSA err by construing the amendments to Petitioner’s corporate charter as unambiguous without addressing whether Petitioner’s construction is reasonable? 2) Did the trial court err by applying contra proferentem and granting summary judgment despite evidence of the parties’ intent and material fact disputes without giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences?
Attorneys for Petitioner: G. Stewart Webb, Jr. and Pamela S. Palmer
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel S. Katz
Monday, December 7, 2020:
No. 14 Travelocity.com LP n/k/a TVL LP v. Comptroller of Maryland
Issues – Tax-General – 1) Did Petitioner’s activities in Maryland during the periods covered by the assessment (the “Periods in Issue”) result in the provision of a “right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest,” within the meaning of Maryland Code, Tax-General Article (“T-G”) § 11-101(k)(1)(ii)? 2) Was Petitioner a “Vendor” during the Periods in Issue within the meaning of T-G § 11-101(o)? 3) Did the Tax Court fail to give effect to Chapter 3, Acts of 2015, which altered the definitions of “Tangible personal property” and “Vendor”? 4) Did the Tax Court err in determining that the base for calculating the sales tax had to be reduced by the “Tax Recovery Charge”? 5) Did the Tax Court err in deciding that T-G § 13-1102(b) did not apply to permit Respondent to assess sales taxes beyond the four-year limitation period? 6) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner sold its customers the right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest, a transaction subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(ii), when the customers reserved the room on Petitioner’s website and paid Petitioner for the room reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 7) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner rented to its customers, on a short-term basis, passenger cars or other vehicles, a transaction that is subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(i) when the customers paid Petitioner for the rental car reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 8) Did the Tax Court correctly conclude that because Petitioner sold tangible personal property located in Maryland, Petitioner was required to collect and remit sales-and-use tax as a vendor engaged in the business of a retail vendor or out-of-state vendor under T-G § 11-701? 9) Did the Tax Court err in holding that sales-and-use tax was not due on the lump sum fee for service charges and estimated taxes that Petitioner charged its customers, when the sales-and-use tax was not separately stated from the service charges and the portion attributable to the estimated tax was not remitted to Respondent but paid to a third party?
Attorney for Appellant: Scott R. Wiehle
Attorneys for Appellee: Benjamin M. Grossman and Renee Nacrelli
No. 20 In Re: Special Investigation Misc. 1064
Tuesday, December 8, 2020:
No. 21 Ronnie Hunt v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the fact that Joseph Kopera’s false credentials were discovered over a decade later by another attorney in a different case was enough for the trial court to find that Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to act with due diligence, as is required to prevail under Md. Code §8-301(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Does CSA’s holding in this case conflict with this Court’s “considered dicta” in State v. Hunt, 443 Md. 238 (2015)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Samuel Feder
Attorney for Respondent: Derek Simmonsen
No. 22 K. Hovnanian Homes of Maryland, LLC, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace, et al.
Issues – Municipal Corporations – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a “strong mayor” city charter abrogates the common law of municipal contracts, which gives a city council power to enter into contracts by motion or resolution without the mayor’s signature? 2) Did CSA err by holding that under the separation of powers doctrine, a “strong mayor” city charter invalidates a recoupment agreement entered into by a city council without the mayor’s signature?
Attorney for Petitioner: Gail D. Spielberger
Attorney for Respondent: April C. Ishak
After December 8, 2020, the Court will recess until January 4, 2021.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
Pursuant to the October 2, 2020 Second Amended Administrative Order on the Progressive Resumption of Full Function of Judiciary Operations Previously Restricted Due to the COVID-19 Emergency and the June 18, 2018 Administrative order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.