SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2021
Monday, April 4, 2022:
AG No. 69 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark David Wemple
Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Mark David Wemple
No. 48 Administrative Office of the Courts, et al. v. Abell Foundation
Issue – Maryland Rules – Did CSA misinterpret the administrative-record exemption of Maryland Rule 16-905(f)(3)(B)(i), which directs a custodian of judicial records to deny inspection of an administrative record “prepared by or for a judge” that is “purely administrative in nature but not a local rule, policy, or directive” and is “not filed with the clerk and not required to be filed with the clerk,” when CSA concluded that the exemption did not apply to a mainframe edit table correlating each District Court judge with an alphanumeric code and ordered disclosure of the mainframe edit table?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kevin M. Cox
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin Rosenberg
No. 47 CX Reinsurance Company Limited and Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company v. Devon S. Johnson, et al.
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in refusing to interpret insurance policies like other contracts, concluding that “sound public policy dictates that liability insurance policies should be construed to protect injured tort claimants” notwithstanding their terms? 2) Did CSA err in holding that all claimants who have asserted or will assert claims are intended beneficiaries of insurance policies, with vested interests in those policies from the date of their alleged injuries, and have the same rights under those policies as claimants who have obtained judgments or entered into settlements? 3) Did CSA err in holding that an insured and its insurer cannot resolve litigation by entering a settlement, in good faith, that modifies or reduces insurance coverage without the consent of all current and future tort claimants?
Attorney for Petitioner: Robert L. Hoegle
Attorney for Respondent: Paul S. Caiola
Tuesday, April 5, 2022:
No. 49 Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Christine Pifer, et al.
Issues – Evidence – 1) Did CSA err in reversing the authenticity threshold applied by the trial court for the admissibility of items purchased from the internet? 2) Did CSA err in ignoring the alternative grounds for summary judgment encompassed in the trial court’s order?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Joseph W. Hovermill and Matthew T. Wagman
Attorneys for Respondent: Daniel A. Brown and Matthew E. Kiely
No. 50 Christopher W. Mee, et al. v. Robert Peterson, et al.
Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Did CSA err in its interpretation of Md. Code §5-109(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”), as interpreted by this Court’s decision in Anderson v. United States of America, 427 Md. 99, 46 A.3d 426 (2012), which held that CJP § 5-109 is a statute of limitations in its entirety, not a statute of repose, and that the triggering period for limitations is when the victim of an alleged medical malpractice sustained cognizable legal harm, not a subclinical medical condition that has caused no apparent injury or concern and that would not have triggered any investigation until a much later time period?
Attorney for Petitioner: Marc Seldin Rosen
Attorney for Respondent: Steffany Bender
Friday, April 8, 2022:
No. 56 State of Maryland v. Juan Pablo Bustillo
Issue – Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in holding that a trial court’s failure to comply with Maryland Rule 4-346(a) when imposing a period of probation results in an “illegal sentence” within the contemplation of Maryland Rule 4-345(a)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Peter R. Naugle
Attorney for Respondent: Michael T. Torres
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified. After April 8, 2022, the Court will recess until May 5, 2022.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON