On these pages, the Supreme Court of Maryland archives videos of the current term year oral arguments and videos of the oral arguments from the preceding three term years. Videos of arguments from earlier term years are available upon request. The Court's archive of oral argument videos covers the period from May 2007 to the present.
SEPTEMBER TERM 2025 Webcasts
October 2025 Oral Arguments
September 2025 Oral Arguments
Oral Arguments Archives
September Term 2024 Webcasts
September Term 2023 Webcasts
September Term 2022 Webcasts
Webcasts and the archived recordings of webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Recording or copying of any portion of the live webcast or the archived recording of a webcast is prohibited without the express permission of the Supreme Court, which can be obtained by contacting Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488 or at [email protected]. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
| October 2025 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 10-07-2025 | No. 3 | Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Sanjeev Varghese Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err when it held that governmental immunity for negligent infrastructure design decisions can be overcome by prior notice to the government that the design decision created a danger? 2) Did ACM’s decision that Maryland courts can adjudicate what infrastructure designs local governments should use violate the prohibition against the judicial branch assuming any of the duties of the other branches found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 3) Did ACM err when it held that Petitioner enjoyed neither common law governmental immunity nor statutory immunity under the Maryland Recreational Use Statute (§§ 5-1101 through 5-1109 of the Natural Resources Article)? |
| 10-07-2025 | No. 21 | CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. v. Matthew Skipper, et al. Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did ACM err when it applied the incorrect standard to its analysis of whether Respondents’ complaint stated claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation? 2) Did ACM erroneously conclude that the Respondents’ claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation did not fail as a matter of law based on a misinterpretation of COMAR § 31.11.06.06(B)(11) and Md. Insurance Administration Bulletin 13-01? 3) Did ACM err when it held that the mere possibility that Respondents could be entitled to pre-judgment interest is sufficient to confer standing and seek class certification under Md. law? 4) Did ACM err when, relying on Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 430 Md. 144 (2013), it found Respondents had standing to pursue their claims against Petitioner? |
| 10-07-2025 | No. 22 | Donte Demont Strand v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a theft prosecution, where the State alleges a specific item stolen, but fails to prove what was stolen, should trial courts apply an essential element variance analysis or a substantial prejudice variance analysis? 2) If the trial courts apply a substantial prejudice variance analysis, was Petitioner misled such that he could not lodge an effective defense or exposed to double jeopardy where the State alleged specific items stolen but failed to prove the identity of what was taken? 3) Where an indictment for theft alleges specific items stolen but fails to prove the identity of the item stolen, is the evidence sufficient to convict? 4) Where the consolidated theft statute defines property as “anything of value”, is it a rational inference that any unidentified tangible item has value because every tangible item invariably has an ascertainable replacement cost, or does the value of an item require some evidence? |
| 10-06-2025 | No. 11 | Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. B.P. P.L.C., et al., Anne Arundel County v. B.P. P.L.C., et al., City of Annapolis v. B.P. P.L.C., et al. Issues – Torts – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do the U.S. Constitution and federal law preempt and preclude state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate? 2) Does Maryland law preclude nuisance claims based on injuries allegedly caused by the worldwide production, promotion, and sale of a lawful consumer product? 3) Does Maryland law preclude failure-to-warn claims premised on a duty to warn every person in the world whose use of a product may have contributed to a global phenomenon with effects that allegedly harmed the plaintiff? 4) Does Maryland law preclude trespass claims based on harms allegedly caused by global climate changes arising from the use of a product by billions of third parties around the world outside of producer’s control? From the cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for public and private nuisance? 2) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for strict liability and negligent failure to warn? 3) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for trespass. |
| 10-06-2025 | No. 15 | William L. Hallam v. New Life evangelical Baptist Church, Inc., et al. Issues – Real Property – 1) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents were able to raise their claim of fraud in post-sale exceptions filed pursuant to Rule 14-305(e)? 2) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents had preserved their right to raise their claim of fraud post-sale where they had failed to perfect their right to litigate the same fraud claim pre-sale? |
| 10-06-2025 | No. 19 | Miguel Angel Santana v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Maryland’s double jeopardy common law bar retrial after a mistrial requested by the defendant where the mistrial was caused by the State’s recklessness? 2) In light of the clear evidence that the State’s recklessness caused the mistrial, should this Court reverse the denial of Petitioner’s motion to dismiss? |
| 10-03-2025 | No. 16 The oral arguments in this matter were held at Easton High School, Easton, Maryland. | State of Maryland v. Michael Eugene Stone Issue – Transportation – Do police officers have reasonable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop for use of a mobile phone while driving, in violation of §§ 21-1124 to 21-1124.2 of the Transportation Article, when they observe a driver manipulating a mobile phone in a manner that is consistent with sending a text message or initiating a phone call? |
| 10-03-2025 | No. 20 The oral arguments in this matter were held at Easton High School, Easton, Maryland. | Gary Wilson v. Tanglewood Venture, LP Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court, upon request of an unlicensed landlord, require a tenant to pay rent under the rent escrow law, Md. Code, Real Property § 8-211? 2) For the purposes of determining an on-the-record versus de novo appeal, how is the amount in controversy determined in an escrow matter when the Parties’ claims differ from the amount of rent ordered to be placed into escrow and the amount placed in escrow? 3) Is an appeal of a rent escrow matter moot if, even though dangerous conditions continue unabated, the landlord agrees on appeal not to seek the rent for the unlicensed period subject to escrow or if there are collateral consequences to the trial court’s dismissal of the escrow? |
| 10-01-2025 | Bar Admissions | |
| 10-01-2025 | No. 12 | Comptroller of Maryland v. The Potomac Edison Company Issues – Tax General – 1) Did ACM erroneously interpret § 11-210(b) of the Tax-General Article, which exempts “tangible personal property … used directly and predominantly in a production activity” from sales-and-use tax, to apply to the equipment that Respondent uses not to produce electricity but to transmit and deliver it from out-of-state generators to its Maryland consumers? 2) In applying ACM’s erroneous interpretation of § 11-210(b) of the Tax-General Article, did the Tax Court err in concluding that much of Respondent’s transmission and delivery equipment was used “directly and predominantly” – that is more than 50 percent – in a production activity, when Respondent’s expert testified that the equipment is used both to deliver and process electricity simultaneously and concurrently and that neither delivery nor processing predominates? 3) Did ACM err in concluding that § 13-508(a) of the Tax-General Article, which governs the time within which a taxpayer may seek a refund of tax paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller, supersedes the generally-applicable four-year limitations period in § 13-1104(g) and allows Respondent the refund of previously-paid sales-and-use-tax that was not paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller? 4) Did ACM err by compelling the State to pay interest on Respondent’s refund claim when the evidence showed that Respondent paid the tax because of an “accounting system irregularity”, a mistake not attributable to the State? |
| 10-01-2025 | No. 17 | Jeffrey Reyes v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When is a criminal defendant’s sentence imposed under Maryland Rule 4-345? 2) Did the trial court illegally increase Petitioner’s sentence when sentencing him to one year, suspend all but nine months, followed by three years of supervised probation but later, after advising Petitioner of his post-trial rights, changing the sentence to five years, suspend all but nine months, and three years of supervised probation? |
| September 2025 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 09-09-2025 | Misc. No. 1 | Express Scripts, Inc., et al. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1) Under Maryland’s common law, can the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance constitute an actionable public nuisance? 2) If so, what are the elements of such a public nuisance claim, and what types of potential relief can a local government plaintiff seek when asserting such a claim? |
| 09-09-2025 | No. 10 | George Bowens v. State Farm Musual Automobile Insurance Company Issue – Insurance Law – Does the “debt or damages claimed” against an underinsured motorist carrier include amounts paid by the tortfeasor’s liability carrier? |
| 09-08-2025 | No. 2 | Jabari Morese Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. Issues – Contracts – 1) Where a separate document is never made available to, shown to, or signed by a contracting party, but that separate document is incorporated by reference into the underlying contract, is a consumer bound by the terms of that separate document despite having no knowledge of or access to the terms in that separate document? 2) When a contract contains two distinct integration clauses – one defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the seller and the other defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the assignee – does the assignee obtain rights under the terms of the buyer/seller integration clause? |
| 09-08-2025 | No. 8 | Diandre Goodrich v. State of Maryland Issue – Constitutional Law – Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s request for self-representation in violation of his constitutional rights and Maryland Rule 4-215? |
| 09-08-2025 | No. 9 | Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment? |
| 09-05-2025 | No. 4 | In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? |
| 09-05-2025 | No. 5 | In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? |
| 09-05-2025 | No. 6 | In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court to conduct an individualized analysis when the undisputed record establishes as a matter of law that there is no particularized need to disclose Petitioners’ identities? |
| 09-04-2025 | Bar Admissions | |
| 09-04-2025 | AG No. 21 (2024 Term) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David B. Mintz |
| 09-04-2025 | AG No. 27 (2024 Term) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tristan Wade Gillespie |
| 09-04-2025 | No. 1 | Philip Clarke v. Chinyere Gibson Issues – Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err in finding Petitioner’s lack of credibility was sufficient evidence for finding physical abuse when there was no other evidence of a physical assault? 2) Did the trial court err and violate Petitioner’s due process rights when the Petition for Protection failed to plead any form of physical assault or child abuse? 3) Did the trial court err when it scheduled the hearing in excess of seven days in the future without stating good cause on the record? |