Court of Appeals Webcast Archive


SEPTEMBER TERM 2022 Webcasts

September 2022 Oral Arguments


Webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Rebroadcast of this transmission is prohibited without the express permission of the Court of Appeals, which can be obtained by contacting the Division of Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488.


September 2022 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-13-2022 No. 4 Ray Crawford, et al. v. County Council of Prince George's County, Sitting as the District Council, et al.

Issue – Land Use – Is an Amazon Last Mile Hub a “warehouse” and, therefore, permitted by right at the Subject Property?  
09-13-2022 No. 9 United Parcel Service, et al. v. David Strothers

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of Md. Code § 9-504 of the Labor & Employment (“LE”) Article, that “definite proof” applies to the quality of evidence presented, and not to the standard of evidence presented when the same quality of evidence is required in all claims presented before the Workers’ Compensation Commission? 2) Did CSA err when it found that the Respondent met his burden of production when producing medical evidence to a preponderance of the evidence standard, a standard to which all other claims submitted before the Workers’ Compensation Commission must meet? 3) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of LE § 9-504, that “immediate operation is needed” applies to the recommendation for surgery and not the timing of the surgery, finding 59 days to be “immediate”?  
09-12-2022 No. 1 Susan Dzurec, et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County, Maryland, et al. 

Issues – Local Government – 1) If a county commissioner is voting to enact a Comprehensive Plan in violation of the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance, is that vote ultra vires? 2) Does the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance include an implied cause of action for citizens with standing?  
09-12-2022 No. 64 (2021 T.) Antonio McGhee v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law – 1) Do Charles v. State, 414 Md. 726 (2010), Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011), which concern the propriety of CSI-effect voir dire questions and jury instructions, apply to cases that became final before those decisions issued? 2) Did Petitioner’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel when at Petitioner’s 2007 trial, she failed to object to a CSI-effect voir dire question?  
09-09-2022 No. 5 Access Funding, LLC, et al. v. Chrystal Linton, et al.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must determine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties when Respondents did not challenge the validity or enforceability of the underlying agreements containing the arbitration clauses in their complaint? 2) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must decide the existence of an arbitration agreement when well-established Federal and Maryland law mandates that the arbitrator and not the court decides the issue of arbitrability when Respondents executed agreements containing arbitration clauses that expressly stated the arbitrator shall decide the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute, and Respondents have only alleged fraud and misrepresentation as to the agreements as a whole and not with respect to the arbitration clause separately and specifically?  
09-09-2022 Misc. No. 1 Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company

Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: When a first-party, all-risk property insurance policy covers “all risks of physical loss or damage” to insured property from any cause unless excluded, is coverage triggered when a toxic, noxious, or hazardous substance – such as Coronavirus or COVID-19 - that is physically present in the indoor air of that property damages the property or causes loss, either in whole or in part, of the functional use of the property?  
09-09-2022 No. 7 Comptroller of Maryland v. FC-GEN Operations Investments LLC

Issues – Tax-General – 1) Should this Court overrule recent decisions and hold that on judicial review of a decision in a tax case, the agency owed deference in the interpretation and application of tax law is the Comptroller and not the Tax Court? 2) Did the Tax Court and CSA err in finding that estimated tax remittances are “deposits,” not statutorily required “payments,” when Maryland’s doctrine of conformity requires the application of federal law to Md. Code § 13-1104(c) of the Tax-General Article, and federal law considers them payments? 3) When properly applied, do Maryland’s voluntary payment rule and the statutory framework for refunds of estimated taxes found in found in Title 13 of the Tax-General Article require denying FC-GEN’s claim, which it improperly submitted for itself, under the law?  
09-08-2022 Bar Admissions

09-08-2022 No. 6 Ernest and Maryann Elsberry v. Stanley Martin Companies, LLC

Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court rely on legislative history unrelated to the specific statutory text at issue to override the consumer protections granted in the plain language and tabulation of Md. Code § 14-117(a)(3) of the Real Property (“RP”) Article, an unambiguous remedial statute? 2) Did CSA violate Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution by using the title of the bill “Prince George’s County – Deferred Water and Sewer Charges Homeowner Disclosure Act of 2014” to contradict the plain language of RP § 14-117(a)(3)(ii)?  
09-08-2022 No. 2 M. Abraham Ahmad v. Mehdi Ahmad & Giti Ahmad Revocable Trust

Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Can the statute of limitations operate to adversely affect a substantive right of a party acquired under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction? 2) Can a legal nullity start the running of the statute of limitations? 3) Can a trust void ab initio and made in violation of law benefit from a statute of limitations defense?