Court of Appeals Webcast Archive 2012 Term

 

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 communications@mdcourts.gov. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
To view the Webcast, you must have Windows Media version 9 or higher. This FREE software can be downloaded to your computer.
Download the FREE Media Player
 
June 2013 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
06-11-13 No. 96

This recording begins with Judge Harrell making a brief tribute to Chief Judge Bell on the occasion of his final day of oral arguments before retirement.		 Adeline Sturdivant, et al. v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issues - Labor and Employment - 1) After a layoff, do laid-off State employees have a statutory right, under Title 11, to reinstatement by seniority if the unit seeks to fill vacancies in the same class? 2) As Spring Grove Hospital did not comply with each of the steps for recruitment, set out in Title 7, when it filled vacant DCA positions, must it reinstate the aggrieved employees?
06-11-13 No. 94 Lincoln Miller v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did CSA overstep its bounds in holding that there was no existing precedent as of the date Petitioner's conviction became final that would have compelled a ruling that the failure to advise a criminal defendant about deportation consequences constituted ineffective assistance of counsel despite precedent in the form of Denisyuk v. State, which held that the Supreme Court ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively to post-conviction challenges of guilty pleas entered after April 1, 1997? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Denisyuk did not apply to Petitioner's case because his claim for coram nobis relief was based exclusively on his assertion that his guilty plea was involuntary and not that his trial counsel was ineffective? 3) Was Petitioner's guilty plea entered into voluntarily where he was not advised of the certain immigration consequences, that is, placement in deportation proceedings, that would follow as a result of the plea? 4) Did CSA correctly affirm the trial court's denial of coram nobis relief upon this Court's remand for reconsideration where CSA held that the ineffective assistance of counsel issues addressed in Denisyuk did not apply to Petitioner's voluntariness issue; the law at the time of Petitioner's guilty plea did not support a finding of ineffective assistance in any event; and Petitioner's guilty plea was voluntarily entered with knowledge of the direct consequences of the plea? 5) Did CSA improperly consider Petitioner's claim regarding the denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis on remand where Petitioner had waived the claim on which he sought relief and where Petitioner's claim was without merit in any event?
06-11-13 No. 97 Josephine Chesson, et al. v. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co.

Issue - Civil Procedure - Did CSA err in holding that the Frye-Reed standard for the admissibility of scientific expert opinion requires a consensus in the relevant scientific community supporting that opinion?
06-10-13 AG No. 28 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Francis Gerace
06-10-13 No. 90 Ogden E. Coleman, II v. State Of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to multiple instances during trial where the State brought into evidence that Petitioner had remained silent in the face of police questioning after Petitioner had been issued Miranda warnings?
06-10-13 No. 93 Jeremy K. Fishman, et al. v. Sheila Murphy, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy Mae Urban

Issues - Real Property - 1) Whether the doctrine of equitable subrogation is to be broadly and liberally applied or applies only to refinance lenders who, after a foreclosure sale, obtain a position of priority over intervening judgment holders? 2) Whether undisputed facts supporting the application of the doctrine of equitable subrogation establish "good cause" under MD Rule 14-211(e) sufficient to prevent the lower court from dismissing a foreclosure action under a pending motion to stay or dismiss where the moving party concedes that the doctrine should apply? 3) Whether a trial court is required to deny a motion to stay or dismiss under MD Rule 14-211, where the trial court has found that the motion to stay or dismiss was not filed under oath nor supported by affidavit as required by subsection (a)(3)(A) of the rule and no good cause for the failure to file under oath or affirmation has been provided or alleged? 4) Whether the constructive notice provided by Rule 12-102 pursuant to the doctrine of lis pendens defeats all claims against title to real property subject to that constructive notice regardless of the outcome of the pending litigation?
06-06-13 AG No. 22 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melissa Donelle Gray
06-06-13 No. 85 David C. Winters v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Where a criminal defendant enters pleas of not guilty and not criminally responsible, is a waiver of jury trial rendered invalid where the judge during the waiver colloquy affirmatively misadvises the accused concerning the defense of not criminally responsible?
06-06-13 No. 88 Victoria Little v. Roger Schneider

Issues - Health Law (Malpractice) - (1) Is evidence of a physician's board certification status admissible when the physician is a defendant in a medical malpractice action, is called by the plaintiff as an adverse witness, and testifies about the physician's specialized knowledge, skill, and expertise? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by precluding Respondent from testifying about a CAT scan which played no role in, and was not relevant to, his treatment of Petitioner?
06-05-13 Bar Admissions  
06-05-13 AG No. 35

We apologize. Due to technical problems this is only a partial recording of the oral arguments in this case.		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas Patrick Dore
06-05-13 No. 87

There are two parts to this recording.

Part 1
Part 2		 Roguell Blue v. Prince George's County, Maryland, et al.

Issue - Public Safety - In applying the "supervisory employee" exemption to the handgun control law, should the requirement that the employee be "within the confines of the business establishment" be restricted to inside the building only, as CSA ruled?
06-05-13 Nos. 95 & 101 In Re: Ryan W.

Issues - Juvenile Law - CINA - 1) Did CSA err in holding that a local department of social services has plenary authority to apply for and use a foster child's OASDI benefits without seeking an express grant of authority from the juvenile court to exercise control over the benefits and without providing the foster child with notice and the opportunity to be heard? 2) Did CSA err in rejecting the juvenile court's exercise of its authority in determining that a total of $31,693.50 was to be conserved in Ryan's best interests? 3) Did CSA err in upholding state practice and regulations that require automatic, non-discretionary application of all of a foster child's OASDI benefits and that are inconsistent with federal regulations requiring the proper exercise of discretion as a representative payee? 4) Did CSA err in directing the juvenile court, on remand, to revise it's monetary award against the State by requiring the Department to deposit funds into a foster child's trust account because, as CSA had already concluded, the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to enter such an order and because such an order is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity?
May 2013 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
05-07-13 No. 75 Gail B. Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment, et al.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – (1) Whether the statute of limitations bars a claim against a defendant who has continuously contaminated surface and groundwater for longer than three years, and who continues to contaminate that water? (2) Whether groundwater contamination that polluted surface water is a permanent nuisance notwithstanding that Respondents had entered into a Consent Order which required the Town to abate the nuisance? (3) Whether Petitioner's cause of action for inverse condemnation accrued when the lake was first polluted in 1996 or when her bank foreclosed on her property in 2010? (4) Whether the lower court erred when it held that Petitioner has not shown a "series of acts or course of conduct" that could toll the statute of limitations?
05-07-13 No. 82 Bernard Dixon, etc., et al. v. Ford Motor Company

Issues – Torts – (1) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting under Rule 5-702 the opinion of Plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Welch, because Dr. Welch's testimony did not satisfy CSA's newly-articulated model of "probabilistic causation"? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting the opinion of Dr. Welch that Mrs. Dixon's alleged secondary exposure to asbestos through Petitioner's work with Ford brake linings was a substantial contributing factor in her mesothelioma, where that opinion was offered in response to a hypothetical question that assumed facts not in evidence? (3) If admitting this expert witness was error, was it harmless error because of the unchallenged admission of substantively identical testimony by another expert witness and because the jury concluded that the exposure in question was the only substantial contributing factor causing the illness? (4) Did the trial court err by using it's revisory power under Md. Rule 2-535(a) to hold Georgia-Pacific, LLC liable on Ford's cross-claim based on the trial court's conclusion that the jury's verdict that Georgia-Pacific was not liable for Mrs. Dixon's death, but that Ford was so liable, were irreconcilably inconsistent? (5) Did the trial court err in failing to use its revisory power to also enter judgment on Ford's cross-claim against Honeywell? (6) Whether the different treatment of individuals with identical damages under the statutory cap on non-economic damages found at C&JP §11-108 violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Articles 5, 19, 23, and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, as interpreted by this Court in Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992). (7) If Dr. Welch's causation opinions were inadmissible, should final judgment in favor of Ford be rendered, as opposed to merely a new trial? (8) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Ford's Motion for New Trial given that (a) the jury's verdict was inconsistent and against the great weight of the evidence, (b) Plaintiffs' closing arguments were highly improper, and prejudicial and (c) the verdict was shocking?
05-07-13 No. 102 Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Jocelyn A. Farrar

Issues - Torts - 1) Does this Court's multi-factor test for determining when duties enforceable in tort are owed to third parties apply to product liability claims and, if so, do product manufacturers have a legal duty to warn household residents of the risks of exposure to toxic materials carried home by workers who did not use the product in question but were exposed indirectly as bystanders? 2) What is the minimum threshold of sufficient evidence that satisfies Balbos' "frequency, proximity, and regularity" test for substantial-factor causation?
05-06-13 AG No. 21 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jimmy Anthony Bell
05-06-13 No. 84 In re: Adoption/Guardianship of Jayden G.

Issues - Family Law - (1) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court's order terminating parental rights, where the trial court proceeded with that hearing while the appeal challenging the CINA order changing the permanency plan from reunification to nonrelative adoption was still pending in CSA, and where ultimately the order changing the permanency plan was vacated? (2) Did the trial court err in basing its decision to terminate parental rights on Jayden's prospect of being adopted by, as well as the quality of care provided by, his current foster care providers?
05-06-13 No. 86 Thommy Whack, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel's motion for a mistrial after the State, in a rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence?
05-02-13 No. 80 Bashawn Montgomery Ray v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Did CSA err in holding that there existed probable cause to arrest Petitioner under the common enterprise theory when counterfeit credit cards were discovered in a vehicle that was later found to contain items purchased using those credit cards? (2) Should CSA have refused to address Petitioner's claim that he was arrested without probable cause where this issue was not raised at the suppression hearing and no testimony or evidence was produced on the circumstances of his arrest?
05-02-13 No. 83 John L. Webb, Sr., et ux. v. G. Phillip Nowak, et ux.

Issues - Real Property - (1) Is the principle that the interpretation of a deed is a question of law to be considered de novo in appellate review inapplicable in boundary disputes, as CSA opined? (2) May the preference for monuments over courses and distances be applied to reduce the amount of a grant, as CSA determined? (3) Was the trial court's interpretation of the deed incorrect?
05-02-13 AG No. 20 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gina Michelle O'Leary
05-01-13 Bar Admissions  
05-01-13 AG No. 15 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dean Clayton Kremer
05-01-13 AG No. 18 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jason Ashley Kobin
05-01-13 No. 78 Joanna Anthony v. Peter Garrity

Issues – Family Law – (1) When a person is on the street outside a dwelling from which that person is barred by a Protective Order, does an individual inside the dwelling have probable cause to call 911 as a matter of law or is that a fact issue to be resolved by a jury based on the subjective beliefs of that individual? (2) Does the street area in front of a home constitute a "common area surrounding the dwelling" in cases where a Protective Order bars entry to the dwelling? (3) Is calling 911 enough to establish grounds for a "malicious prosecution" claim, where arrest and prosecution resulted from the decision of law enforcement that the Protective Order was violated?
05-01-13 No. 77 Ocean City, Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Daniel J. Barufaldi

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – (1) Did CSA employ the wrong standard of review in reversing the trial court's denial of fees? (2) May trial courts consider the inability of a defendant to pay in deciding whether to award fees in a Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL) case? (3) May trial courts consider the deterrent effect of a fee award in deciding whether to award fees in an MWPCL case? (4) May trial courts consider the applicability of the case beyond its particular factual context in deciding whether to award fees in an MWPCL case? (5) On what grounds or under what circumstances may a trial court properly deny a claim for fees under the MWPCL?
April 2013 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
04-09-13 AG No. 82 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jonathan David Sperling
04-09-13 No. 59 Robert Oku v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Whether Petitioner's right to a de novo appeal of his District Court conviction under MD Code § 12-401 of the Courts & Jud. Proc. Art. was violated when defendant's testimony from that trial was admitted into evidence in his circuit court trial? (2) Whether Petitioner's due process rights, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. 24 of the MD Declaration of Rights, were violated when petitioner's testimony from the District Court trial was admitted into evidence in his circuit court trial, thus denying him the full benefit of the process that must be afforded him under the de novo system?
04-09-13 No. 4 (2013 Term) In re: Ashley S. and Caitlyn S.

Issues - Family Law - 1) Where the Appellate Court held the removal of children from their mother's care to have been an abuse of judicial discretion, may the juvenile court in a subsequent hearing consider those months that the children spent in foster care as being an "out-of-home placement" for the purposes of determining the permanency plan for the children, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., CJP § 3-823? 2) Did the juvenile court err in ordering a plan of adoption for the children, where they were aged 13 years and 4 ½ years and had a bond with their mother?
04-08-13 AG No. 14 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tiffany T. Alston
04-08-13 No. 66 Catherine Lynn Turner v. Direse Helen Hastings

Issues – Torts – (1) Did CSA err in vacating an award of damages where the portion of the verdict concerning damages had not been announced in open court? (2) Did the trial court have the power to correct what it saw as an inconsistent verdict?
04-08-13 No. 58 Antonio L. Brown v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal
04-05-13 AG No. 24 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Valentine Patton, III
04-05-13 No. 74 Karl Marshall Walker, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Whether sexual abuse of a minor is committed by the exchange of non-sexually explicit letters and drawings? (2) Did CSA err in ruling that Petitioner did not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in his work desk for purposes of a Fourth Amendment challenge to a warrantless search of the desk
04-05-13 No. 68 The Town of La Plata, et al. v. Faison-Rosewick, LLC, et al.

Issues – Election Law – (1) Did the trial court correctly determine that the Town's signature validation procedures, published two days before the signature pages were filed, were untimely, ultra vires, facially-invalid, improperly "abandoned" by the Town, & that the referendum process was tainted by those errors? (2) Because under Art. 23A, §19(g) the referendum petition, & under §19(j) the ballot, cannot include the three Non-Referable Resolutions, did the Town err in permitting verification of signatures to proceed on the legally insufficient pages & including the Non-Referable Resolutions on the proposed ballot, while failing to make the mandatory finding that the pages complied with Art. 23A, §19? (3) Given the lack of detail in Art. 23A, §19(g) regarding verification of signatures on municipal referenda, and in light of Cumberland and Tyler, should State-based common law be applied to protect the integrity of this municipal referendum process? (4) Can the Town of LaPlata challenge its own Resolutions on this appeal under the principles set forth in Burning Tree? (5) Did the trial court properly have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's challenge? (6) What is the appropriate standard of appellate review? (7) Did the trial court correctly conclude that the LaPlata town manager acted beyond his authority when he, rather than the Town Council, published the criteria he applied to verify and validate petition signatures and he did so two days before deadline for the submission of those signatures? (8) Even if the town manager acted beyond his authority, does that ultra vires act thereby warrant invalidating the petition, precluding the referendum election, & thereby punishing the citizens of LaPlata who were blameless in the matter? (9) Whether the referendum petition & ballot are invalid because, in addition to seeking a referendum on the Town Council's annexation resolution, they also mention three other resolutions, all inextricably related to the annexation resolution? (10) Whether, despite the clear inapplicability of the MD Election Code to the municipal referendum at issue, the court should have invalidated the referendum because LaPlata's petition verification procedures did not meet the requirements set forth in the Election Code? (11) Since Art. 23A § 19(g) imposed on the Town manager the mandatory duty to verity signatures on an annexation petition without any guidance as to how to perform that duty, does the Town manager have implied authority to use any reasonable means to fulfill that duty, including the promulgation of written procedures, without the need for authorizing legislation by the Town Council? (12) Since those written procedures were intended to assist the Town manager in the verification of annexation referenda petitions, did the promulgation of those procedures two days before the petition for referendum was submitted violate any due process rights of Plaintiffs or the public at large? (13) Should this Court apply MD common law relating to referendum petitions, developed under the Election Law Art., to municipal annexation referenda when the Election Law Art. expressly excludes from its scope elections conducted and petitions filed under Art. 23A §19?
04-05-13 No. 65 Long Green Valley Association, et al. v. Bellevale Farms, Inc., et al.

Issue – Environmental Law – Whether the grant of a conservation easement to the State creates a charitable trust such that interested third parties have standing to file an action seeking to enforce that easement when the State has failed to do so?
04-04-13 Bar Admissions  
04-04-13 No. 76 Benjamin Morgan Hawkes v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – Whether the statutory right to conditional release under Crim. Proc. Art. § 3-114(c) requires a showing that the committed individual would not pose a risk of danger to self or the person or property of others without regard to the conditions designed to address such risk?
04-04-13 No. 71 David Scull, et al. v. Groover, Christie & Merritt, P.C.

Issues – Health – (1) Whether CSA erred in holding that the scope of the Consumer Protection Act's "professional services" exemption includes a physician's billing practices? (2) Whether CSA erred in holding that § 19-710(p) of the Health Gen. Art. does not include an implied private right of action against a health care provider?
04-04-13 No. 72 State of Maryland v. Sean Fennell

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Is a trial court required to accept a partial verdict at the request of one party over the objection of the other? (2) Where the jury sends to the court a verdict sheet and the court sends the jury back for further deliberations, is it a proper exercise of the court's discretion to later declare a mistrial as to all charges when, upon further inquiry with the jury, the court concludes that the jurors were unable to reach a verdict?
04-04-13 No. 73 Motor Vehicle Administration v. James Robert Spies, III

Issues – Transportation Law – (1) Does a police officer have reasonable grounds to request a blood alcohol test under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1(a)(2) of a driver based solely on a moderate odor of alcohol on their breath? (2) Under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1(a)(2), may an officer draw a negative inference from a driver's refusal to take roadside sobriety tests? (3) Does the observation of an alleged moving violation and/or the refusal to undergo field sobriety tests in conjunction with a moderate odor of alcohol constitute reasonable grounds to request that a person submit to a blood alcohol test under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1(b)(2)?
March 2013 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
03-12-13 No. 57 William J. Warr, Jr., et al. v. JMGM Group, LLC d/b/a Dogfish Head Alehouse

Issue - Torts - Whether this Court should recognize dram shop liability?
03-12-13 No. 53 Darnell Fields v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Does the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule bar the admission of prior testimony by a witness who, subsequent to providing the testimony, was convicted of perjury? 2) Did CSA err in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for the admission of prior testimony under the former testimony exception or, in the alternative, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to propound a missing witness instruction? 3) Where an internal affairs investigator for police found "facts sustained" against officers, did the trial court err in refusing to permit the defense to inspect internal investigation division files concerning misconduct by the officers and, at trial, refusing to allow the defense to cross-examine the officers about the misconduct?
03-12-13 No. 81 Clayton Colkley v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Does the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule bar the admission of prior testimony by a witness who, subsequent to providing the testimony, was convicted of perjury? (2) Did CSA err in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for the admission of prior testimony under the former testimony exception or, in the alternative, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to propound a missing witness instruction? (3) Where an internal affairs investigator for the police found "facts sustained" against officers, did the trial court err in refusing to permit the defense to inspect internal investigation division files concerning misconduct by those officers and, at trial, in refusing to allow the defense to cross-examine the officers about the misconduct?
03-11-13 AG No. 10 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robert Norman Levin
03-11-13 No. 67 Bobbi Jo and Billy G. Hunt, Sr. v. Aberdeen Proving Ground Federal Credit Union

Issues – Real Property – (1) Did CSA err in holding that foreclosure proceedings were not a foreseeable result of Aberdeen's failure to wire money to the Petitioners' mortgage company? (2) Did the trial court err in calculating damages based on the value of the property at the foreclosure sale as opposed to the fair market value of the property?
03-11-13 No. 60 State of Maryland v. Tyres Kenard Taylor

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Did CSA incorrectly apply MD Rule 4-215 where there was no request by the defendant for discharge of trial counsel and the only issue before the trial court was an administrative request for a continuance? (2) Did CSA incorrectly construe MD Rule 4-215 when it found that the trial court violated the rule? (3) Did the lower court violate Respondent's constitutional right to representation by counsel of his choice?
03-08-13 AG No. 9 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Brien Michael Penn
03-08-13 Misc. No. 21 St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc., Mark G. Midei, M.D., and Midatlantic Cardiovascular Associates, P.A. v. The Honorable John Grason Turnbull, II

Petition for writ of mandamus.
03-08-13 No. 63 Thomas C. Lindsay, Sr., et al. v. Annapolis Roads Property Owners Association, et al.

Issues – Real Property – (1) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat may be created without an express reference to the plat? (2) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat is created when the plat creates a strip of land but does not contain any words that demonstrate the existence of easement rights over the strip? (3) Whether an easement appurtenant to an unimproved lot may be used by the owner of other improved lots that are forever merged into the lot with the easement appurtenant?
03-08-13 No. 64 Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp. v. Belinda Beebe-Lee

Issues – Insurance Law – (1) Did CSA err in affirming that Insurance Article of the MD Code provides PCIGC with only a limited right to contest settlements entered into between claimants and insolvent insurers? (2) Did CSA err in affirming that PCIGC is liable to claimants for twice its statutory limit of liability on a claim for a single bodily injury where the insolvent insurer provided both primary coverage and umbrella coverage?
03-07-13 Bar Admissions  
03-07-13 AG No. 37 In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Jose Expedito M. Garcia to the Bar of Maryland
03-07-13 AG No. 66 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Edward Coppock, Jr.
03-07-13 No. 62 Anthony Zei v. Maryland Transit Administration

Issue – Statutory Interpretation – Did CSA err in holding that a bus operator's failure to meet federal DOT safety standards rendered him unqualified as a matter of law for an MTA bus operator position?
03-07-13 No. 61 Jose F. Lopez v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Is the defense of laches available to the State in post-conviction cases, even though pursuant to Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27 § 645A(e) an inmate is entitled to file a petition "at any time"? (2) Assuming the defense of laches is available in this case, did the post-conviction court err in ruling that the defense of laches applied? (3) Did CSA correctly hold that the doctrine of laches applies to post-conviction proceedings relating to convictions pre-dating October 1, 1995? (4) Did CSA err in concluding that the record lacked sufficient evidence of laches? (5) Did CSA err in remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the defense of laches applied after it had concluded that the State had failed meet its burden to prove either of the two prongs of the laches defense?
February 2013 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
02-12-13 AG No. 12 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joel Jay Fader
02-12-13 No. 52

This case was argued concurrently with No. 46 below. Arguments for both cases are in one recording.		 Anthony Tyler v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the lower court correctly conclude that Petitioner waived his claim of a Rule 4-246(b) violation, and that because his jury trial waiver was made knowingly & voluntarily, the lack of an express finding to that effect by the trial court constituted harmless error?
02-12-13 No. 46

This case was argued concurrently with No. 52 above. Arguments for both cases are in one recording.		 Jeffrey Robert Valonis v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court's statement "We note the waiver of the right to trial by jury" satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-246(b) that before accepting a waiver of jury trial the trial court determine and announce on the record that the waiver was knowing and voluntary? 2) If not, did Petitioner waive his claim about the trial court's announcement by failing to object, or, in the alternative, was the error harmless?
02-11-13 No. 55 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Angela Brock

Issue - Statutory Law - Whether an entity in possession of a promissory note indorsed in blank – the most common type of indorsement for thousands of notes owned by mortgaged-backed security trusts – is not a holder and is merely a non-holder in possession, in conflict with Title 3 of the Maryland UCC & a misinterpretation of Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232 (2011)?
02-11-13 No. 43 Michael David Gordon v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Whether, and if so, under what circumstances, an individual who presents a driver's license in response to a request for identification by law enforcement manifests an adoption or belief in the truth of information contained in the license for purposes of the hearsay exception for adoptive admissions set forth at Maryland Rule 5-803(a)(2)? 2) Was the detective's testimony regarding the date of birth on Petitioner's driver's license admissible under the public record hearsay exception set forth at Maryland Rule 5-803(b)(8)? 3) Did Petitioner waive his challenge to the admissibility of the testimony under the public records exception?
02-11-13 No. 44 Maryland Economic Development Corporation v. Montgomery County, Maryland

Issue - Taxation - Does the statutory exemption of the MD Economic Development Corporation (MEDCO) from "any requirement to pay taxes or assessments on its activities" apply to recordation taxes on deeds of trust granted by MEDCO as part of an economic development project?
02-08-13 No.47 Board of Directors of Cameron Grove Condominium, II, et al. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations

Issues - Administrative Law - 1) Whether the Agency's Appeal Board erred by requiring that Petitioners show evidence that thieves and vandals had gained illegal entry to the building before it could prohibit keys from being distributed to doors which were not secure? 2) Whether CSA correctly ruled that the Agency's Appeal Board had performed the balancing test required by MD's reasonable accommodation statute? 3) Whether the Agency's Appeal Board erred by ignoring the county Planning Board's Specific Design Plan, which required that a security system be installed on the doors in question?
02-08-13 No. 54 In Re: Adoption of Sean M.

Issues - Family Law - 1) Whether a natural parent's failure to file a timely objection to a proposed independent adoption, as directed in a show cause order, constitutes an irrevocable consent to the adoption? 2) Whether the statutory scheme resulting in an irrevocable deemed consent to an independent adoption offends the due process rights of the parent?
02-08-13 No. 56 Jennifer Evans Dize, Personal Representative of the Late William Smith Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots

Issues - Labor & Employment - 1) Whether CSA's interpretation of a threshold requirement for seaman status under the federal Jones Act has placed Maryland in conflict with with US Supreme Court precedent? 2) Whether the trial court applied an overly restrictive standard to the issue of whether Petitioner had a "connection to Respondent's fleet of vessels in navigation", thereby excluding Petitioner's time spent performing duties such as maintenance work on the fleet?
02-07-13 Bar Admissions  
02-07-13 No. 48 Joan J. Stickley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that Ins. Code § 19-504.1 does not apply to excess of umbrella policies? 2) Whether a personal liability umbrella policy that includes motor vehicle liability insurance constitutes "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance" as contemplated by Ins. Code § 19-504.1?
02-07-13 No. 49 Jorge Appraicio v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Did the trial court err in answering a question from the jury about the lack of a police report and police testimony in evidence and the weight they should give to its absence by responding that they were to decide the case based on "what is in evidence", thereby potentially stopping the jury from considering the lack of that evidence in reaching its verdict?
02-07-13 No. 51 William H. Matthews v. W.C. Pinkard & Co., Inc., etc., et al.

Issues - Corporations &Associations - 1) Did the trial court err in failing to apply either MD Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-203 or MD's discovery rule, which govern when a cause of action accrues, to Appellant's claims for violations of the MD Securities Act? 2) Did the trial court err in determining that the financial transactions at issue did not satisfy the MD Securities Act's definition of an "investment contract"? 3) Did the trial court err in its dismissal of Appellant's common law claims, including fraud and misrepresentation, because it failed to properly apply MD Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-203 and/or MD's discovery rule?
02-07-13 No. 50 Paul F. Kendall, et al. v. Howard County, Maryland

Issues - Election Law - 1) Did the trial court err in holding that the alleged denial by County officials of Petitioners' constitutional and statutory rights to referendum and petition did not provide the "particularized harm" or "concrete injury" necessary to give Petitioners standing to bring suit? 2) Did the trial court err in dismissing the case because Appellants had failed to join necessary parties?
January 2013 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
01-08-13 AG No. 81 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeffrey David Kahl
01-08-13 No. 39 Falls Road Community Association, Inc., et al. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et al.

Issues - County Government - 1) Can a writ of mandamus lie to compel the executive branch of county government to enforce the unequivocal terms of an adjudicatory order of that county's board of appeals, or does the county have discretion to refuse to enforce an order of the board of appeals? 2) When the executive branch of county government violates an order of its board of appeals, does a writ of mandamus lie to compel the county to remedy that violation? 3) Must administrative remedies be primary, and must they be pursued and exhausted, when those remedies would be futile because the county itself violated the law? 4) Is the ability to seek supplementary relief under CJ, §3-412 sufficient to meet the requirement in a declaratory judgment action that the requested declaration serve to terminate the controversy giving rise to the action? 5) Is coercive or injunctive relief available under the MD Declaratory Judgment Act? 6) Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant a declaratory judgment for petitioners after finding that declaratory judgment would not terminate the controversy between the parties because a) Petitioners sought a declaration that the repaving of the parking lot was illegal; b) there was no basis to order the tenant to deconstruct the parking lot, since its landlord (Baltimore County) ordered the repaving; and c) Baltimore County could not be ordered to remove the repaving, as it was not subject to a writ of mandamus? 7) Whether Petitioners were entitled to seek a declaratory judgment from the trial court without first pursuing the special statutory remedies available to them for enforcement of zoning orders and regulations? 8) Whether the circuit court was legally correct in granting Respondents' motions for summary judgment on Petitioners' claims for mandamus relief on the ground that the duties imposed on Baltimore County are discretionary in nature? 9) Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in entering judgment for Respondents on Petitioners' claim for declaratory relief on the grounds that such relief would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to this action and that coercive or injunctive relief is not available under the MD Declaratory Judgment Act. 10) Whether the Petitioners' claims for declaratory injunctive and mandamus relief should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies?
01-08-13 No. 42 Constantine Koste v. Town of Oxford, et al.

Issue - Election Law - May signatures on a petition for referendum under Md. Code Ann. Article 23A, §19(g) be counted if obtained after publication of the notice of the annexation resolution but before enactment of the unmodified resolution?
01-07-13 No. 45 Felix L. Johnson, Jr., Deceased v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Issue - Workers' Compensation - Whether a remedial statute that is amended by the General Assembly while a litigant has a pending claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission should apply to the pending claim
01-07-13 AG No. 74 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Paul Winston Gardner, II
01-04-13 No. 100 Gregory Hall, et al. v. Prince George's County Democratic Central Committee, et al.

Issues – State Government - 1) As a matter of first impression, under Art. III, § 13(a)(1) of the MD Constitution where a central committee submits a name to the Governor within 30 days of a vacancy of office in the House of Delegates, does the Governor have a mandatory duty to appoint the person whose name is submitted to him within 15 days? 2) As a matter of first impression, what is the final day for the Governor to perform his duty to appoint under Art III, § 13(a)(1) of the MD Constitution where the 15th day following submission of the name falls on a legal holiday? 3) As a matter of first impression, does the central committee have any authority to rescind the name it submitted to the Governor under MD Constitution Art. III, § 13(a)(1) more than 30 days after the event that created the vacancy in the House of Delegates. 4) Should a writ of mandamus issue to the Governor to appoint the central committee's nominee if he fails to do so after 15 days? 5) Did the trial court err in considering on summary judgment an affidavit that was based upon "information and belief"? 6) Does Art. XV, § 2 of the MD Constitution permit the expulsion of a duly-elected legislator who received a final disposition of probation before judgment? 7) Where charges against an elected official resulted in a final disposition of probation before judgment in another county, did the lower court have the power to revoke this disposition and disqualify that official from completing her term in office?

Further information about this case, including briefs, is available on our Highlighted Cases page. [Highlighted Cases]
01-04-13 No. 34 (2011 Term) Paul B. DeWolfe, in his official capacity as the Public Defender for the State of Maryland, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.

Reargument. Issues - Criminal Law - Are Petitioners entitled, under the recently amended Public Defender Act (2012 Md. Laws ch. 504-05), to relief on the basis of the right to counsel provided in either or both the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art. 21 of the Md. Declaration of Rights and/or either or both the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art.24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights.
01-04-13 No. 6 (2010 Term) Norman Bruce Derr v. State of Maryland

On remand from the United States Supreme Court.

Further information about this case and the remand is available on our Highlighted Cases page. [Highlighted Cases]
01-04-13 No. 37 Orville Cooper v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in allowing an expert witness to testify regarding the report of another expert who did not testify at trial in violation of the rules against the admission of hearsay? 2) Did the trial court err in allowing the non-testifying expert's report into evidence in violation of appellants constitutional right of confrontation? 3) Did the trial court err in allowing the non-testifying expert's report into evidence without a proper foundation in the form of a demonstrated chain of custody of the evidence tested? 4) Did the trial court err in admitting other prejudicial hearsay?
01-03-13 Bar Admissions  
01-03-13 No. 36 Jody Lee Miles v. State of Maryland

Death penalty appeal.
01-03-13 Misc. 15 In the Matter of the Application of Drew Everett Stewart for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
01-03-13 AG No. 98 (2011 Term) In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rex B. Wingerter to the Maryland Bar
01-03-13 No. 40 A & E North, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Issues - Real Property - 1) Does hardship entitle a condemnee to payment of relocation benefits before resolution of a challenge to the condemning authority's right to acquire the subject property? 2) Does a prejudicial jury view of the condemned property entitle a condemnee to a new trial? 3) Is CSA's new standard to determine whether a condemnee is a displaced person under the Relocation and Assistance Act contrary to the plain language and legislative intent of the act? 4) Did CSA err in confusing the concepts of hardship and prejudice and, as a result, misconstrue this Court's holding in Bern-Shaw v. Baltimore (377 Md. 277)? 5) Is a property owner required to pursue and exhaust the administrative process pertaining to issuance of a relocation payment?
December 2012 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
12-04-12 AG No. 70 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alfred Amos Page, Jr.
12-04-12 No. 31 Big Louie Bail Bonds, LLC v. State of Maryland, et al.

Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Should bond be released and a bail bondsman's liability on bond be discharged when a defendant fails to appear in court because of the actions of the MD Department of Public Safety and/or the United States Department of Justice?
12-04-12 No. 34 CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Edward L. Pitts, Sr.

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Whether the federal regulation governing the ballast used to support railroad track, 49 C.F.R. § 213.103, applies to track and walkways located within rail yards as well as to track on the main line? 2) Whether CSA acted contrary to Supreme Court precedent when it adopted "an employee-friendly standard" of review in FELA cases? 3) Whether the trial court erred in preventing Petitioner from cross-examining Respondent's economist about work-life statistics concerning railroad employees' average age at retirement?
12-03-12 AG No. 1 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Edward Hunt
12-03-12 Misc. No. 7 Travco Insurance Company v. Crystal Williams

Certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
12-03-12 No. 32 Daryl Jones v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al.

Issues – County Government – 1) Whether the County may remove an elected official from his or her seat for conviction of a misdemeanor when there is no local law in effect to govern the removal of a Councilmember for conviction of a crime and § 2 of Art. XV of the MD Constitution does not allow for removal under the circumstances in this case? 2) Whether the County may remove an elected official from his or her seat for inability to perform the daily duties of office for a period of five months? 3) Whether the County may remove an elected official from his or her seat by interpreting a residency requirement to mean "place of abode" rather than "domicile"? 4) Does the Clean Hands Doctrine bar the Petitioner's claims for relief seeking removal of an incumbent member of the County Council from office and restoration of Petitioner to office?
11-30-12 AG No. 27 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robert Weston Mance, III
11-30-12 Misc. No. 10 Gladys Gardner, Individually on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Ally Financial Incorporated, f/k/a GMAC Incorporated

Randolph Scott, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Situated v. Nuvell National Auto Finance, LLC, d/b/a Nuvell National Auto Finance; NUVELL FINANCIAL SERVICES

Certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
11-30-12 No. 13 William M. Bailey v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal
11-29-12 Bar Admissions  
11-29-12 Misc. No. 8 Andre Bourgeois, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al.

Certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
11-29-12 No. 24 Transcare Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Bryson Murray, et al.

Issues - Statutory Law - 1) Whether the Good Samaritan Act precludes civil liability to a vicariously liable private employer whose employee is immune under the Act? 2) Whether the Fire and Rescue Act provides immunity for a paramedic & his employer, a private ambulance company, providing emergency medical services in the absence of gross negligence?
11-29-12 No. 33 Kent Island, LLC v. Michael A. Dinapoli, et al.

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Whether CSA erred in finding that the Circuit Court of one county has subject matter jurisdiction to review a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court for another county? 2) Whether CSA erred in finding that a consent order agreed to by the parties and entered as a final judgment was a mere settlement agreement, reviewable by another court, rather than a final judgment that could only be revised by the Circuit Court entering the judgment as set forth in Rule 2-535?
11-29-12 No. 35 B. Marie Green, Supervisor of Assessments of Montgomery County v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Issue – Taxation – Does the parsonage or convent exemption in Tax-Prop. § 7-204 apply to 46-unit apartment complex owned by Appellees and occupied by married and single church workers who pay rent to the Church and conduct religious services at the Church's temple, which serves a district that covers the mid-Atlantic region?
November 2012 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-07-12 Misc. No. 2 Christopher Eric Bouchat v. State of Maryland

Redistricting petition.
11-07-12 Misc . No. 3 Petition of Delores Kelley and James Brochin

Redistricting petition.
11-07-12 Misc. No. 5 Petition of Cynthia Houser, et al. v. Martin O'Malley

Redistricting petition.
11-05-12 No. 15 Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Thomas M. Albright, et al.

Issues- Torts - 1) Whether, in an action for fraud, evidence of the Defendant's false, sworn testimony to the government, made with the intent of influencing government action, & relied upon by it to the Plaintiff's detriment, satisfies the requirement that Plaintiffs prove reliance? 2) Whether property owners whose sole source of potable water has been contaminated with a genotoxic substance for which there is no safe level of exposure, are entitled to damages for fear of cancer or for medical monitoring. 3) Whether, in an action for property damage, evidence that the Defendant released contaminants into the aquifer that serves as the Plaintiff's sole source of potable water is sufficient to establish Defendant's liability for an invasion of the Plaintiff's land?
11-05-12 No. 16 Exxon Mobil v. Paul D. Ford, et al.

Issues - Torts - 1) Does MD permit awards for emotional distress due to fear of developing cancer &, if so, must claimant prove that his or her wrongful exposure to a carcinogen makes it more likely than not that he or she will develop cancer? 2) May a jury's verdict that all of Plaintiffs' properties were worthless be upheld where (a) the properties were all still habitable & many had no contamination; (b) all experts testified that the properties retained substantial value; & (c) those properties which were sold all sold for a substantial price? 3) Did CSA err in holding that counsel for Petitioner did not waive his client's right to challenge the compensatory damage awards, despite implicit acquiescence in the jury verdict? 4) Should Plaintiff's property damage expert's opinions have been admitted where he failed to use any generally accepted method of valuation & he failed to consider actual sales or forecast accurately those arms length valuations? 5) Should emotional distress verdicts be overturned where the uniform awards ignored the substantial differences among Plaintiffs, evidence satisfying the Vance standards for recovery of such damages was not presented, & the jury instruction permitted recovery for fear of cancer without any evidence of exposure to the alleged carcinogen or that the exposure made it "reasonably probable" that a Plaintiff would contract cancer? 6) Did CSA err in holding that the "fear of cancer" jury instruction was erroneous & prejudicial 7) Does MD law permit damages for medical monitoring & if so, may such damages be awarded where a) no Plaintiff claimed to have any current disease caused by exposure to contaminant, b) there was no proof that any Plaintiff had a significantly increased risk of developing any disease, & c) as to many Plaintiffs, there was no proof of exposure? 8) Is a new damages trial required when a jury's award of compensatory damages is not based on the Plaintiff's alleged injuries? 9) Did CSA violate CJP § 1-403(c) when it issued its in banc decisions without a "concurrence of a majority of the incumbent judges of the entire Court"? 10) Did CSA reach a majority vote of the sitting judges on the issue of medical monitoring and, if they did, was there error in holding that the evidence was insufficient to support an award for medical monitoring?
11-02-12 No. 26 Edward Bruce Lowery, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues - Environmental Law - 1) Whether MD Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has complied with its statutory duty to publish specific delineations of submerged aquatic vegetation protection zones when the public notice provided contact information within DNR but contained no actual delineations? 2) Whether MD DNR has complied with its statutory duty to give public notice of delineations of submerged aquatic vegetation protection zones when the legal notice given was published broadly on the Eastern Shore and Southern MD but only once elsewhere in the state?
11-02-12 No. 30 Pines Plaza Limited Partnership v. Berkley Trace, LLC The Hampton Company, Inc. and James P. Joyce

Issues – Real Property – 1) Does MD law presume that an assignee of a real estate contract assumes the assignor's contractual obligations, unless the assignment expressly provides otherwise? 2) Is a person defending against an assigned claim entitled to setoff based on its claim against the assignor, even if it could not otherwise sue the assignee on that obligation? 3) Does MD adhere to the rule that a real estate contract clause, providing for automatic forfeiture of a deposit if closing does not occur by a specified date, is a "time is of the essence" clause?
11-01-12 Bar Admissions  
11-01-12 AG No. 44 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gerald Frederick Chapman
11-01-12 No. 29 Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baltimore v. Sylvester Dorsey

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Can the requirement that an employee's impairment must be "independent of any preexisting physical or medical condition, whether job-related or otherwise," be satisfied when the impairment is caused in part by a preexisting medical condition? 2) Did CSA err in deciding that appellee was qualified for line-of-duty disability retirement, when his impairment was the result of an asymptomatic, preexisting medical condition made symptomatic by a work-related injury?
11-01-12 No. 27 Michael Lee Phillips, et al. v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery College

Issue - Taxation - Whether taxpayers invoking the longstanding common law right of MD taxpayers to challenge illegal or ultra vires acts of MD public officials that are likely to cause pecuniary injury also must possess a separate "private right of action" in order to be entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief?
October 2012 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-10-12 AG No. 50 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Stephen Rand
10-10-12 No. 21 Benn Ray, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.

Issue - Real Property - Did CSA err when it ruled that Petitioners lacked standing because they were neither prima facie aggrieved nor specially aggrieved by the City's land use decision?
10-10-12 No. 18 Reginald McCracken v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Does the plain-feel doctrine allow police to seize evidence when they have only reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause, to associate that evidence with criminal activity? 2) Did CSA err in concluding the officer could seize a set of keys & a car remote because he had probable cause to believe they were evidence of "hacking"?
10-09-12 No. 23 State of Maryland v. John Wesley Ray

Issue - Criminal Law - Did CSA err in reversing the lower court's proper denial of Respondent's motion to dismiss those re-instituted charges in light of Ray v. State, 410 Md. 385 (2009)?
10-09-12 No. 12 Maryland Insurance Commissioner v. Leon Kaplan

Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did the Insurance Commissioner correctly find that ERISA does not preempt Md. Code Ann., Ins. §14-139, where there is no indication that Congress intended to preempt or supplant State efforts to protect assets of non-profit health insurers from depletion and where ERISA and §14-139 serve altogether different purposes? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that ERISA preempts any State regulatory action pursuant to §14-139 that affects the amount of any payment from an ERISA plan, even where the payment would be made out of corporate assets of the non-profit insurer? 3) Did the trial court err in failing to recognize that §14-139 regulates insurance & therefore is not preempted by ERISA?
10-09-12 No. 19 100 Investment Limited Partnership, et al. v. Columbia Town Center Title Company, et al.

Issues - Torts - 1) Did CSA err by holding that title companies do not owe a tort duty of care when conducting a title search? 2) Did CSA err by holding that the title insurer was not vicariously liable for the negligence of the title companies who were its agents?
10-05-12 No. 14 State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company

Issue - Taxation - Did the MD Tax Court correctly interpret Public Utilities Art. §§ 7-524 & 7-548 when it rejected an adjustment to the taxable gross receipts of a public utility, where the franchise tax is imposed on the statutorily-defined gross receipts from the utility's electricity distribution charges, where the adjustment sought by the utility was based on a credit that offset the increased cost to consumers of electricity generation, & where the offset did not alter the revenue received by the utility from its distribution service?
10-05-12 No. 17 Graylin Bernard Spence v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did CSA properly decline to address the legality of a sentence when that court vacated the conviction upon which the allegedly illegal sentence was based? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to establish that petitioner was subject to enhanced penalty as a subsequent offender? 3) Did CSA err in finding the trial court was obligated to conduct a MD Rule 4-215(e) hearing where the trial court was never apprised that Petitioner had a desire to discharge his assigned public defender?
10-05-12 No. 22 WSG Holdings v. Larry Bowie, et al.

Issues - Administrative Law - 1) Did CSA err when it found that objections to the site visit were preserved for appellate review & that there was no recorded vote or any recognition that the exclusion of some members of the public were subject to the procedural requirements of the state Open Meetings Act? 2) Did CSA err when it found that the March 17, 2009 site visit violated the open meeting requirement? 3) Did CSA err in reversing the judgment & remanding the matter to the Board for another hearing & decision without further instructions to the trial court and Board?
10-04-12 Bar Admissions  
10-04-12 Misc. 6 In the Matter of the Application of Dennis Alan Van Dusen for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
10-04-12 No. 20 State of Maryland v. Latresha L. Weems

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Are the requirements of Criminal Law Art. § 7-104(d) met if it is shown that a defendant knew that he or she had obtained property by mistake, learned the identity of the owner, failed to take measures to restore the property to the owner, and intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the State failed to prove that Respondent took reasonable measures to restore the property to its owner?
10-04-12 No. 11 Ronald L. Powell, et al. v. Jeffrey R. Breslin, et al.

Issues - Civil Procedure - 1) Should a case that has been dismissed because of the preclusive effect of an earlier judgment in another case be reopened if the earlier judgment is vacated? 2) If a civil case that should have been dismissed without prejudice is erroneously dismissed with prejudice & the error is not corrected until after the limitations period has expired, does the plaintiff have any recourse?
September 2012 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-11-12 No. 10 Cherie Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City

Issues - Tort Law - 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in precluding testimony from Petitioner’s expert witness on the grounds that the expert lacked qualifications and an adequate factual basis as to the source of Petitioner’s lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court correctly grant Respondent’s Motion of Summary Judgment & did CSA correctly decline to review that decision?
09-11-12 No. 1 Veronica Tinsley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Issues - Transportation - (1) Whether petitioner’s claims against WMATA are barred by governmental immunity under Sec. 80 of the WMATA Compact? (2) Whether petitioner failed to make a prima facie case of negligence? (3) Whether the trial court erred in allowing petitioner’s expert witness who questioned WMATA’s immunized selection of cleaning products?
09-11-12 No. 25 Kim Hodge v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Issues - Transportation - 1) Whether Petitioner's claims against WMATA are barred by governmental immunity under § 80 of the WMATA Compact, codified as Md. Transport. § 10-204? 2) Whether WMATA's claimed immunity is limited by § 75 of said compact regarding compliance with state and local laws as there exists a wide body of case law in Maryland providing for premises liability? 3) Whether WMATA's claimed immunity is limited by § 75 of said compact as Prince George's County has enacted a Property Standards and Management Code and a Fire Prevention Code which preclude commercial businesses from failing to clean and police their floors? 4) Whether Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case of negligence as a matter of law in light of the blizzard which occurred shortly before Petitioner's fall?
09-10-12 AG No. 86 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gerald Isadore Katz
09-10-12 No. 4 Ramiro Arce Gonzalez v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court correctly conclude that State met its burden of proving that Petitioner’s Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when Miranda warnings were given in a mixture of languages and State failed to introduce the content of those warnings into the record? 2) Did CSA improperly shift the burden of persuasion to petitioner when it required him to present sufficient evidence that he did not understand one of the languages used when informed of his Miranda rights?
09-10-12 No. 9 James K. Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, et al.

Issue - Tort Law - Should this Court ameliorate or repudiate the doctrine of contributory negligence & replace it with a comparative negligence regime?
09-07-12 No. 125 (2011 Term) John Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections

Issues - Constitutional Law - (1) Does the retroactive application of Maryland’s newly enacted sex offender registration laws violate the federal constitutional ban on ex post facto laws and Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights prohibiting ex post facto laws and ex post facto restrictions? (2) Do Maryland’s sex offender registration laws violate petitioner’s federal and state constitutional rights to due process? (3) Given that the plea agreement entered into by petitioner could not have contemplated registering as a sex offender, is he entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement?
09-07-12 No. 2 Angela Jones Kendall v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Was it error for the circuit court to deny motion seeking dismissal of the State's appeal of the district court's dismissal of the charges against Petitioner based on, inter alia, a claim of double jeopardy?
09-07-12 No. 3 Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4 v. Baltimore County, Maryland

Issues - Labor & Employment - 1) Under MD common law, should an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement be enforced after that agreement’s expiration when an otherwise arbitrable grievance is presented concerning vested rights that arise out of that collective bargaining agreement? 2) Does the common law of MD require the court or the arbitrator to determine the arbitrability of a postexpiration grievance arising out of a collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause? 3) Did the lower court err in holding that in the arbitration opinion & award at issue in litigation, the arbitrator failed to address the question of whether the arbitration clause had expired?
09-06-2012 Bar Admissions  
09-06-2012 AG No. 35 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Daniel Quinn Mahone
09-06-2012 No. 5 Eileen York v. Richard Hession

Issue - Civil Procedure - Does the rule against splitting causes of action bar a plaintiff from asserting a claim when that claim arose before the plaintiff filed and unrelated action against the same party?
09-06-2012 No. 8 Warren Jerome Yates v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Is the admission of Petitioner's hearsay confession harmless error when the essential content of that confession was elsewhere properly admitted without objection? 2) Did CSA err in adopting the res gestae theory of second-degree felony murder in sustaining petitioner's conviction? 3) Did CSA abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise plain error review of the trial court's use of jury instructions consistent with MD Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction?
09-06-2012 No. 7 Demetrius Nickens v. Mount Vernon Realty Group, LLC, et al.

Issues - Real Property - 1) Did CSA err in holding that the common law right of peaceable self-help permits a foreclosure purchaser to surreptitiously enter a residential property & change the locks while the resident is out? 2) Did CSA err in dismissing plaintiff's conversion claim, holding that plaintiff had abandoned all personal property in the residence, despite the complete absence of evidence that he intended to abandon it?