Court of Appeals Webcast Archive 2015 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.
 
June 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
06-02-2016 AG No. 73 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Rhonda I. Framm
 
06-02-2016 No. 95 Carville A. Hollingsworth, et al. v. Severstal Sparrow Point, LLC, et al.

Issue – Labor & Employment – Does a workers’ compensation award for permanent disability which resulted from an accidental injury survive the death of the claimant under § 9-632 of the Labor & Employment Art., so that it is payable to his dependents in a case where he was found to have additional disability due to a pre-existing condition which caused him to be permanently totally disabled?
06-02-2016 No. 104 State of Maryland v. Lawrence Johnson

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) As a matter of first impression, where a defendant waives all post-conviction rights as part of a sentencing agreement, does the waiver include the right to pursue post-conviction relief on claims arising from § 7-106 of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Where the legislature has mandated that a trial court “may reopen a post-conviction proceeding … if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” did CSA err when it ordered the trial court on remand to treat Respondent’s first petition for post-conviction relief as a motion to reopen a post-conviction proceeding?
06-02-2016 No. 105 State of Maryland v. James Leslie Adams-Bey, Jr.

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Where the legislature has mandated that a trial court “may reopen a post-conviction proceeding … if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” did CSA err when it ordered the trial court on remand to reopen Respondent’s post-conviction proceeding?
06-02-2016 No. 102 Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation v. Brown, Brown & Brown, P.C., et al.

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act apply to providers of loan modification services? 2) Where the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act expressly exempts from its coverage only attorneys who meet specified statutory criteria, are attorneys who do not satisfy those criteria subject to the statute?
06-01-2016 Bar Admissions
 
06-01-2016 No. 93 Michelle Bandy, et al. v. Alexandra Clancy

Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the Orphans’ Court err in construing the decedent’s last will and testament to require the personal representative to fund the family trust prior to the payment of estate taxes, such that the older children’s trusts will bear the burden of all the estate’s federal and state estate taxes? 2) Did the Orphans’ Court err in finding that a marital deduction savings clause in a codicil to decedent’s will had the effect of overriding and eliminating the fundamental structure created by the will?
06-01-2016 No. 101 United Insurance Company of America and The Reliable Life Insurance Company v. The Maryland Insurance Administration and Therese Goldsmith, in her official capacity as Commissioner

Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Must a party who challenges the constitutionality and retroactive effect of a newly-enacted Maryland statute exhaust administrative remedies of those challenges before a court can resolve them in a declaratory judgment action?
06-01-2016 No. 100 State of Maryland v. Juan Carlos Sanmartin Prado

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly hold that trial counsel’s advisement – that there “could and probably would be immigration consequences” to the defendant’s conviction for a “deportable” or “potentially deportable” offense – was constitutionally deficient because counsel “qualified” his advice and “did not provide him with the ‘correct available advice about the deportation risk’?
06-01-2016 No. 103 Brenda Smith v. Delaware North Companies, et al.

Issues – Health Occupations – 1) Does the privilege set forth under § 14-410 of the Health Occupations Article (“H.O.”) bar the admission of evidence of a Board of Physicians Consent Order to impeach a physician who is offering testimony as an expert witness? 2) Was the privilege set forth under § 14-410 intended to be strictly limited to medical malpractice actions?
May 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
05-10-2016 Misc. No. 32 In the Matter of the Application of Otion Gjini for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
05-10-2016 No. 90 Patrick Long v. Injured Workers' Insurance Fund, et al.

Issue – Labor & Employment – Whether the Average Weekly Wage of a sole proprietor who elects covered employment status under MD’s Workers’ Compensation Act should be calculated based upon gross profits/earnings and not net profits?
05-10-2016 No. 91 Austria Kponve v. Allstate Insurance Company

Issue – Insurance Law – Is Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 315 Md. 182 (1989) still good law?
05-09-2016

No. 77

Due to a technical glitch the recording linked above is very large.

A smaller version is available below in two parts. We apologize.

Part 1
Part 2

 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. v. Douglas A. Stidham, etc., et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) After dismissing the appeal as moot, did CSA improperly issue an advisory opinion and inappropriately substitute its discretion for that of the trial court regarding the consideration of procedural safeguards to prevent prejudice to the Cigarette Defendants caused by permissive joinder with existing claims on the Asbestos Docket? 2) In rendering its advisory opinion, did CSA misapply the “important public concern” exception to the mootness doctrine in order to review a procedural issue presented only in a limited number of cases pending in a single court which can be reviewed in the future at Plaintiffs’ option? 3) Did CSA err in concluding that there was a final, appealable judgment despite the fact that the trial court plainly expressed its intention not to put Plaintiffs out of court and granted the right to refile? 4) After a case has been resolved as to all defendants by settlement, dismissal or summary judgment, are Plaintiffs thereafter precluded on the ground of mootness from obtaining judicial relief in the form of reinstatement back into the case of Defendants who were, over Plaintiffs’ objection, dismissed on the basis they were improperly joined?
05-09-2016 No. 87 Henry Immanuel v. Comptroller of Maryland

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does the prohibition against providing financial information in response to Public Information Act (“PIA”) requests prohibit disclosure of information concerning comparative values when interpreted in light of the legislative scheme and purpose of the Abandoned Property Act? 2) Was it proper for CSA to affirm the modification of Petitioner’s PIA request, as to number and age of accounts, and thus interfere with Petitioner’s ability to profit from his work? 3) Was it proper for CSA to affirm the trial court’s vacating its earlier sealing of the case to protect Petitioner’s trade secret?
05-09-2016 No. 84 Donzel Sellman v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding the police had reasonable suspicion to believe Petitioner was armed and dangerous, simply because he was stopped for generally suspicious conduct in a high crime area where thefts from cars had been reported at some unspecified time in the past? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the crime of theft from cars implies the use of a deadly weapon?
05-05-2016 No. 85 Ira Chase v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does reasonable suspicion that an individual is engaged in drug activity, by itself, constitute reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous? 2) Under this Court’s case law recognizing that a display of force by the police, such as placing a suspect in handcuffs, constitutes an arrest requiring probable cause absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, was Petitioner under arrest when he was removed from his vehicle and placed in handcuffs? 3) If the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was armed and dangerous when he was removed from his vehicle and handcuffed, was that reasonable suspicion dispelled when the officers patted him down and found no weapons, thereby rendering his continued detention an arrest that was not supported by probable cause?
05-05-2016 No. 88

Please note: The arguments for this case begin at timestamp 1:55.		 Dominic Givens v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in refusing to strike the verdict for felony murder? 2) Is a motion to strike an inconsistent verdict waived if not made before the discharge of the jury?
05-05-2016 No. 89 Adam Santo v. Grace Santo

Issue – Family Law – Do the “Taylor factors” (Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 304-11 (1986)), constitute binding legal parameters, circumscribing the discretion of a custody court faced with a “joint” versus “sole” legal custody decision?
05-04-2016 Bar Admissions
 
05-04-2016 Misc No. 33 In the Matter of the Application of Dierdre Paulette Brown for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
05-04-2016 No. 92 Troy Robert Allen v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court err when it ordered Petitioner to have no unsupervised contact with his biological, infant son as a condition of probation, thereby infringing on his fundamental right to parent, when Petitioner was convicted of sexually abusing a pre-teen girl who was not related to him and when the State failed to demonstrate that Petitioner was a threat to his son?
05-04-2016 No. 86 Kenwood Gardens Condominium, Inc., et al. v. Whalen Properties, LLC

Issues – Zoning & Planning – 1) Does the County Board of Appeals have the authority and responsibility to review whether an “appearance of impropriety” taints and invalidates a County Council Resolution approving the initiation of a favorable Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) Zoning process consistent with its responsibility to review all procedural and constitutional issues per Prince George’s County v. Ray’s Used Cars, 398 Md. 632 (2007)? 2) Is there a serious and extraordinary problem of “appearance of impropriety” when there is an undisputed e-mail record linking the PUD Developer’s illegal campaign contributions to the County Council member with the Council member’s sponsoring of the PUD resolution? 3) Pursuant to the Baltimore County Charter Section, 1009 and MD case law is the County Council’s adoption of a PUD Resolution as to this specific property substantially an administrative action, even though not the final action in the process, and so clearly reviewable for a serious “appearance of impropriety”? 4) Consistent with County Council for Montgomery County v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691 (1975), even if County Council Resolution #108 is legislative in character, is it still subject to review where there is undisputed evidence of an “impropriety” which the reviewing administrative agencies and CSA all criticized and said should not be condoned? 5) Is the “appearance of impropriety” compounded where a County Council member mentioned in the State Prosecutor’s Statement of Facts was raising dollars for an election campaign and then followed up the PUD Resolution by sponsoring and facilitating the approval of legislation (Bill 38-12) which relaxed the long-standing relevant compatibility standard applicable particularly to this PUD, and favoring it in a way which had no rational relationship to compatibility?
April 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
04-05-2016 Comments Regarding Judge Battaglia's Retirement
 
04-05-2016 No. 82 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Sundar Seenath

Issues - Transportation Law – Does the standard Advice of Rights form (DR-15) provide the necessary information to a driver who holds a commercial driver’s license of the consequences of submitting to a test of blood alcohol content if the driver’s results are 0.08 or more?
04-05-2016 No. 78 Robert Anthony McGhie v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a trial court, ruling on the merits of a petition for writ of actual innocence, considers whether newly discovered evidence that an expert lied about his credentials and education created a substantial or significant possibility that the verdict may have been different, should the court simply “excise the false testimony” and determine whether the outcome may have been different if the jury had heard no testimony whatsoever about the expert’s credentials and education, or should the trial court consider whether the result may have been different if it was revealed to the jury during trial that the expert had lied about his credentials? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of actual innocence on its merits and ruled that newly discovered evidence that an expert had lied about his credentials and education did not create a substantial or significant possibility that the result of the trial may have been different?
04-05-2016 No. 79 Michelle L. Conover v. Brittany D. Conover

Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner is a “third party,” where Petitioner is a legal parent under E.T. § 1-208(b)(4)? 2) Should Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661 (2008), be reconsidered?
04-04-2016 No. 71 Steven B. Jackson v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal.
04-04-2016 No. 80 CashCall, Inc., and J. Paul Reddam v. Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act (“MCSBA”) does not require “’a direct payment’ from the consumer,” despite this Court’s contrary ruling in Gomez v. Jackson Hewitt, 427 Md. 128 (2012), that MCSBA requires that “any payment … must come directly from the consumer”? 2) Can a borrower’s repayments of principal and interest be treated as a fee paid “directly” “in return” for a loan marketer’s assistance in obtaining the loan, simply because the principal previously included an origination fee whose benefits inured entirely to the original third-party lender?
04-04-2016 No. 75 Efrain Taylor v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, may a law enforcement officer search a vehicle when he knows nothing more than the fact that the driver has been arrested for DUI and that, in his experience, evidence of DUI may be found inside the vehicle? 2) Must a vehicular search be supported by some quantum of particularized suspicion based on articulable facts? 3) Does the Fourth Amendment countenance a per se rule permitting a vehicular search in any case where the crime of arrest is one that may generate physical evidence? 4) Under the circumstances of this case, was the search of Petitioner’s vehicle unconstitutional?
04-01-2016 No. 72 Kevin Morton, Jr., et al. v. Cinty L. Schlotzhauer

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA fail to credit and respect the discretion of the trial court and announce new mandates for a court in ruling on a Motion to Alter or Amend under MD Rule 2-534? 2) Did CSA misapply the law of relation back when it vacated the decision of the trial court and allowed plaintiff to pursue her original complaint which she had filed when not the real party in interest?
04-01-2016 No. 73 Cynthia Keller-Bee v. State of Maryland

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA properly find that clerical employees of the district courts are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for negligent torts which result in injury to a citizen? 2) Did CSA fail to adequately and properly follow this Court’s decision in Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (1995) which held that a judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity but left open the question of whether clerical employees of the district courts were also entitled to such immunity?
04-01-2016 No. 76 Stephen Sieglein v. Laura Schmidt

Issues – Family Law – 1) Whether the plain meaning of MD Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 1-206(b) can be interpreted to include a case of “in vitro” fertilization from a donated egg and donated sperm, as a result of which Petitioner has been declared a parent of the child and thereby liable for child support, even though the child has no genetic connection to either of the parties? 2) Whether the plain meaning of MD Code Ann. Family Law § 1-203(a)(2) can be interpreted to sustain a permanent injunction against Petitioner on the basis of “harassment”? 3) Whether the long settled meaning of “voluntary impoverishment” has been ignored by the decisions of the courts below?
03-31-2016 Bar Admissions
 
03-31-2016 No. 64 Terrance J. Brown v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Pursuant to the “supplemental rule of interpretation,” where a motions court makes a legal determination without making factual findings, must an appellate court fill in the fact-finding gaps by giving little or no weight to the losing party’s evidence, discrediting the losing party’s witnesses, and resolving any ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the prevailing party? 2) In reversing a suppression ruling, may an appellate court rely on a fact on which conflicting evidence was presented below or must the court accept the version of facts most favorable to the prevailing party? 3) What effect does a motions judge’s failure to make factual findings to support its legal conclusion have on the parameters of the appellate court’s review where conflicting versions of events necessitating factual findings were not presented at the motions hearing? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the motions court’s grant of Petitioner’s suppression motion?
03-31-2016 No. 69 Donald B. Spangler, et al. v. Peggy McQuitty, et vir.

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether Maryland follows the majority of jurisdictions which hold that a prior personal injury judgment obtained by the decedent completely precludes any subsequent wrongful death action based on the same negligent conduct? 2) Whether the decedent’s release, wherein he covenanted that “wrongful death beneficiaries… will not maintain any action for wrongful death,” precluded Respondents from filing a wrongful death action against Petitioners?
03-31-2016 No. 74 State of Maryland v. Kenneth Hart

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court violated MD Rule 4-231 by discussing a jury note with the foreperson in Respondent’s absence where defense counsel waived Respondent’s presence in order to view the note, and also suggested that the trial court question the foreperson about the note in Respondent’s absence? 2) Where a mistrial as to one count was manifestly necessary due to jury deadlock did Respondent, who was unavailable, not have a right to be present for the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial as to that count, and if Respondent did have a right to be present, was the error in declaring a mistrial in his absence harmless? 3) Assuming that the trial court committed reversible error in declaring a mistrial as to a deadlocked count in Respondent’s absence, did CSA err in holding that dismissal of the deadlocked count, rather than retrial, was the appropriate remedy?
03-31-2016 Misc. No. 19 Edward J. and Vicki Fangman, et al. v. Genuine Title, LLC, et al.

Certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Does Md. Code. Ann., Real Prop., § 14-127 imply a private right of action?
March 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
03-08-2016 No. 1 Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association v. Prince George's County, Maryland on behalf of Prince George's County Police Department (Reargument)

Issues on Reargument - Labor & Employment - 1) Did the negotiators of the collective bargaining agreement between Prince George's County and the Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association have the authority to enter into a contractual provision that extends a Weingarten right to criminal investigations? 2) As a matter of contract interpretation, does Article 8.C of the collective bargaining agreement apply to criminal investigations?
03-08-2016 No. 68 Peninsula Regional Medical Center v. Tracey L. Adkins

Issues – Labor and Employment – 1) Under MD’s Fair Employment Practices Act, is an employee required to show that she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” before an employer has a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation? 2) May a plaintiff prevail on a disability discrimination or failure to accommodate claim where that employee failed to engage in the interactive process with the employer?
03-08-2016 No. 66 Michael A. Dinapoli, et al. v. Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County, et al.

Issues – Local Government – 1) What is the proper standard of review for county Boards of Appeals to apply when ruling on motions to dismiss? 2) Does the heightened aggrievement standard applied by the Queen Anne’s County Board of Appeals and the reviewing courts, pursuant to Queen Anne’s Co. Code § 18:1-119.A(1)(a) conflict with Md. Code Ann., Local Gov’t § 10-305(a)(4), which allows for petition to a county board of appeals by “any interested person”? 3) Is it error to defer to an administrative agency’s ruling on a question of law where the agency has admitted on the record that it is confused as to the applicable legal standard, has refused to follow the advice of agency counsel, and has expressed its desire for clarification and further guidance from the reviewing courts? 4) Did CSA improperly substitute its own judgment for that of the Board of Appeals in holding that Petitioners had not alleged the necessary elements for taxpayer standing where the Board’s Findings and Decision remained silent on this issue?
03-07-2016 No. 67 Brutus 630, LLC v. Town of Bel Air, Maryland

Issues – Local Government – 1) Does Md. Code Ann. Art. 24 §§ 9-710 and 9-712 restrict a citizen’s right to claim a refund of erroneously paid or collected money only to fees or charges that are “in the nature of taxes” where the plain language of the statute permits the citizen to apply for a refund, and to appeal the denial of a claim for a refund, of a “tax, fee, charge…”? 2) Does the Tax Court have jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for refund of systems connection charges? 3) Is a systems connection charge a “tax”, a “fee” or a “charge”, or a fee or a charge “in the nature of a tax” so that the Tax Court has jurisdiction over an appeal by the claimant from a denial of its refund claim?
03-07-2016 Misc No. 16 Dennis Merchant v. State of Maryland

Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals. Questions - 1) Did the circuit court err in determining that the statutory scheme, set forth in Crim.Proc. §§ 3-114, et seq., for the granting and/or revocation of the conditional release of a committed person violates the separation of powers provision found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and is thus void as unconstitutional? 2) Did the circuit court err in revoking Merchant's conditional release and ordering his continued commitment for institutional inpatient care and treatment after the ALJ had found that Merchant was eligible for conditional release and had recommended the same?
03-07-2016 No. 81 Marshall Tyrone Stoddard v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the MD Code Criminal Procedure Art. § 3-115 et. seq., interpreted by CSA in Byers v. State, 184 Md.App. 499 (2009), violate the MD Declaration of Rights Art. 8 and did the trial court err as a matter of law when it conducted a de novo hearing in violation of the statute? 2) Did the trial court err in refusing to consider the ALJ’s report and recommendations and refusing to grant Petitioner’s conditional release?
03-04-2016 Bar Admissions
 
03-04-2016 AG No. 90 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Larry D. Hunt
 
03-04-2016 No. 65 Terrance Jamal Grant v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the State has the burden to prove that a warrantless search was lawful, the resolution of the suppression motion turns on a specific fact, and the motions court finds that the evidence to this fact is “not clear,” does the motions court err in denying the motion to suppress? 2) Does MD recognize the “supplemental rule of interpretation” by which an appellate court fills in fact-finding gaps and resolves fact-finding ambiguities and does this rule allow a reviewing court to fill in a fact that is inconsistent with a fact found by the motions court where the reviewing court does not find the fact clearly erroneous? 3) Where a motions court’s factual finding is inconsistent with its subsequent legal conclusion, may an appellate court affirm the denial of the suppression motion on the basis of an inference that is inconsistent with the motions court’s factual finding?
03-03-2016 AG No. 7 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Wells Moore, Jr.
 
03-03-2016 AG No. 20 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Wayne Gordon Gracey
 
03-03-2016 No. 96 (This case was argued with Nos. 97 and 98.) State of Maryland v. Brian Rice

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?
03-03-2016 No. 97 (This case was argued with Nos. 96 and 98.) State of Maryland v. Edward Nero

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?
03-03-2016 No. 98 (This case was argued with Nos. 96 and 97.) State of Maryland v. Garrett Miller

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?
03-03-2016 No. 99 Alicia White and Caesar Goodson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 provide Porter sufficient protection against self-incrimination to allow his testimony to be compelled in the trials of Caesar Goodson and Alicia White?
February 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
02-09-2016 AG No. 80 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Erica S. White
 
02-09-2016 No. 58 Justin Sharp v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court impermissibly consider Petitioner’s refusal to plead guilty and his exercise of his constitutional right to a trial in fashioning his sentence? 2) Did CSA err in determining that defense counsel did not preserve this issue for appellate review?
02-09-2016 No. 59 Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Roy T. Schwalbach, et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did CSA veto the Legislature’s amendments to the Critical Areas Law and restore the formulation of “unwarranted hardship” as articulated in Belvoir Farms v. North, 355 Md. 259 (1999)? 2) Did CSA improperly expand the common law doctrine of riparian rights? 3) Did CSA limit the effectiveness of the Critical Areas Law by negating the presumption of non-compliance? 4) Did CSA ignore the Legislature’s requirement that the appellant prove the variance shall not adversely affect water quality or fish, wildlife or plant habitat?
02-08-2016 AG No. 13 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bruce August Kent
 
02-08-2016 No. 57 State of Maryland v. Jeriko Graves

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court comply with the mandates of Rule 4-215(e), where the court informed Respondent that if he had a meritorious reason for discharging counsel his case would be continued, and directly asked Respondent whether he wanted to discharge counsel, to which Respondent answered that he would “keep [defense counsel] on”?
02-08-2016 No. 62 Milton Everett Jackson v. Gayle Ann Sollie f/k/a Gayle S. Jackson

Issue – Family Law – Should Md. follow the majority of states and require a trial judge to consider whether Social Security benefits should be offset against the marital portion of a Civil Service Retirement System pension upon dividing assets as a result of divorce?
02-05-2016 No. 60 Rowhouses, Inc. v. Myishia Smith

Issue – Torts – Was the trial court legally correct in granting summary judgment in favor of Petitioner where Respondent failed to prove the existence of lead at 1622 E. Oliver Street?
02-05-2016 No. 61 Marvin Wilson v. Sylvia Wilson

Issues – Family Law – 1) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by finding that Petitioner had breached the parties’ contract when in fact the contract had been void ab initio? 2) Is a service member required to obtain the express agreement of his or her ex-spouse to waive disability benefits, which the ex-spouse would not be entitled to under Federal Law, in order to resolve the issue of the division of the military pension and not be obligated to pay disability benefits directly to the ex-spouse? 3) Did the trial court and CSA err in contravening two prior court orders by requiring Petitioner to pay one-half of his gross disability benefits to Respondent?
02-05-2016 No. 56 A Guy Named Moe, LLC t/a Moe's Southwest Grill v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC et al.

Issue – Corporations and Associations – Did CSA err when it determined that a foreign limited liability, that had previously and correctly registered to do business in MD, but whose registration lapsed or was forfeit, is absolutely and incurably barred from maintaining a lawsuit in the State of Maryland that is filed during such lapse?
02-04-2016 Bar Admissions
 
02-04-2016 AG No. 73 (2014 T.)

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Rhonda Ilene Framm
 
02-04-2016 No. 20 Manal Kiriakos v. Brandon Phillips

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether the acts of Respondent establish a prima facie claim for negligence under fundamental tort principles? 2) Whether Md. should recognize a narrowly tailored definition of social host liability when an adult directly provides large amounts of alcohol to a teenager when the adult knows the teenager will soon drive?
02-04-2016 No. 55 Nancy Dankos, et al. v. Linda Stapf

Issues – Torts – 1) Are minors intended protectees of CL § 10-117(b), which prohibits adult property owners from allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on their premises? 2) Does MD recognize a duty of care arising from the special relationship between a parent hosting an underage drinking party on her property and a minor attendee who the parent permitted to attend and consume excessive amounts of alcohol?
January 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
01-12-2016 No. 52 State of Maryland v. Tyshon Leteek Jones

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, where the modality of the commission of a first degree assault is use of a firearm, is first degree assault an inherently dangerous felony capable of supporting a conviction for second degree felony murder or a non-inherently dangerous felony that would support a conviction for second degree felony murder only if committed in an inherently dangerous manner? 2) As a matter of first impression, where the modality of the commission of a first degree assault is the intent to cause or attempt to cause serious physical injury, is first degree assault a lesser included offense of second degree intent-to-inflict-grievous-bodily-harm murder?
01-12-2016 AG No. 30 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kristan Peters-Hamlin
 
01-12-2016 No. 51 David Glenn Seal v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the taped telephone call between Petitioner and Mr. W. was admissible? 2) Does Md.’s wiretapping statute authorize a Md. law enforcement office to provide a resident of another state with an electronic wiretapping device to be used by that individual, two weeks later, to record telephone conversations with a resident of a third state and use those recordings in a criminal proceeding in Maryland? 3) When a Md. law enforcement officer provides a resident of another state with an electronic wiretapping device to be used at that person’s pleasure, does use of the device constitute “acting . . . under the supervision of a . . . law enforcement officer” pursuant to the Md. Wiretap Statute?
01-12-2016 No. 54 Daniel M. Mensah v. MCT Federal Credit Union

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Maryland Law allow a judgment creditor to garnish wages earned by a judgment-debtor employee exclusively for work performed in Texas pursuant to a writ of garnishment issued by a Maryland court? 2) Does Maryland law allow a judgment creditor to garnish wages earned by a judgment-debtor employee exclusively for work performed in Texas pursuant to a writ of garnishment issued by a Maryland court and served on an employer in New Jersey?
01-11-2016 No. 50 Beverly Annetta Hall v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As an issue of first impression, is Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-602.1, the criminal neglect of a minor statute, unconstitutional because it is vague? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for neglect of a minor?
01-11-2016 No. 48 Andrew Glenn v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issues – State Government – 1) Did CSA err in granting deference to the Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Department”)’s legal conclusion that it was authorized, under § 4-358 of the Public Information Act (“PIA”) (Md. Code Gen. Prov. § 4-101 et seq.), to redact the records in question? 2) Did CSA err in substituting for the PIA’s requirement of proof of “substantial injury to the public interest” the far less demanding standard of mere “greater risk” that disclosure of public information might have a “chilling effect” on owners of regulated businesses?
01-11-2016 No. 53 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. v. City of Salisbury

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether CSA erred in expanding the scope of the “litigation privilege” and finding that no claim can stand for a deliberate and voluntary breach of a binding non-disparagement agreement when the disparaging statements are made in legal proceedings, even when the agreement contains no exception for statements made in legal proceedings? 2) Whether CSA erred in deciding the case on a Motion to Dismiss, without resolving or allowing any exploration or litigation of factual questions related to the parties’ expectations and intentions bearing on the scope and effect of the non-disparagement clause?
01-08-2016 No. 46 Justin Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau

Issues – Family Law – 1) Is blood or genetic testing mandated when demanded by a putative father who, from the beginning of the legal process, presents evidence of fraudulent affidavits of parentage? 2) Does extrinsic evidence of fraud exist where the state’s attorney actively participates in the deception and fraud without disclosing it to the putative father or to the lower court during two trials?
01-08-2016 No. 47 Reliable Contracting Company, Inc. v. Maryland Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Authority

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Does Public Utilities (PU) § 12-135 violate Art. IV of the Md. Constitution and/or Art. 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights in vesting plenary judicial power in the Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority to issue citations and adjudicate all cases involving violations of the Miss Utility Statute? 2) Does PU § 12-135 violate Art. IV of the Md. Constitution and/or Art. 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights in vesting the Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority in fixing the amount of penalty, within broad limits, up to $2,000.00 for a first offense and up to $4,000.00 for a subsequent offense, without any legislative safeguards or standards? 3) Is the Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority a unit of the Executive Branch?
01-07-2016 Bar Admissions  
01-07-2016 AG No. 79 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jennifer Vetter Landeo
 
01-07-2016 No. 41 Ann Lane v. Supervisor of Assessments of Montgomery County

Issues – Taxation – 1) Whether evidence of sales consummated subsequent to the Date of Finality is admissible in property tax assessment cases? 2) Does the record lack substantial evidence to support the Tax Court’s determination of assessed value where the Tax Court relied upon sales of units that differ in location, layout and size?
01-07-2016 No. 45 Fraternal Order of Police, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, et al.

Issues – Election Law – 1) May a Home Rule Charter County engage in electioneering and a political campaign using public funds, public employees, and other governmental resources to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law? 2) Do the guarantee of Free Elections in Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights, the State comprehensive campaign finance statue, and State and county laws and regulations prohibiting on-the-job political activities by public employees bar a Home Rule Charter County and/or its public officials from using the municipal corporation, including its public funds, employees, and other governmental resources to engage in electioneering and a political campaign to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law? 3) Are local public officials subject to the campaign finance organization and activity (Subtitle 2) and reporting (Subtitle 3) requirements of Title 13, Md. Code Ann., Election Law (1957, 2010 Repl. Vol.)(“EL”) when they authorize and engage in electioneering and a political campaign using public funds, public employees, and other governmental resources, including the name of the County, to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law? 4) Where local public officials authorize and engage in the expenditure of public funds, use of public employees, and other governmental resources to engage in unlawful and ultra vires electioneering and a political campaign in the name of the local government, to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law, is “qualified immunity” a defense against causes of action for civil misconduct in office, a taxpayers action, and violation of the Declaration of Rights? 5) Are plaintiffs who, at their own expense, successfully challenge the unlawful and ultra vires actions of a local government and its public officials in authorizing and/or engaging in impermissible electioneering and political campaign entitled to an award of counsel fees? 6) Did Petitioners prove that the County’s authority to engage in government speech harmed them in a manner different than the public? 7) Did Petitioners failure to seek prompt judicial review bar their suit? 8) Did Petitioners meet the standards to bring suit as set out in EL § 12-202?
December 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
12-07-2015 No. 38 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Jeffrey Thomas Gonce

Issue – Transportation Law – Was a suspect who agreed to take a blood alcohol test, which produced a test result of 0.00, subject to suspension under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1, when he thereafter refused to submit to a blood test for intoxicants?
12-07-2015 No. 39 Injured Workers' Insurance Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund, et al.

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Should the Subsequent Injury Fund Assessment under Labor & Employment (“L&E”) § 9-806 be calculated based on the amount of the award prior to or after the offset granted under L&E § 9-610?
12-07-2015 No. 40 Baltimore County, Maryland v. Subsequent Injury Fund, et al.

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Whether the County, when entitled to a statutory offset against an award issued by the Workers’ Compensation Commission, is obligated to pay the Subsequent Injury Fund Assessment based on the amount of the award before or after the offset is calculated?
12-04-2015 No. 32 Emerald Hills Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. William E. Peters, et ux.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Whether the subject residential subdivision plat, without any grant, deed, or other writing, expressly created and conveyed an easement for ingress and egress over the subdivision’s land to a property owner whose property was adjacent to, but not part of, the subdivision? 2) Whether CSA erred by concluding that there was no conflict between the access easement for Respondents and the Association’s members’ non-exclusive rights to use the open space areas in the subdivision?
12-04-2015 No. 34 Gary Allmond v. Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issue – Health – Is Md. Code Ann., Health-General § 10-708, as amended, unconstitutional under the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
12-04-2015 No. 35 Wayne Garrity, Sr. v. Maryland State Board of Plumbing

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Did the Md. State Bd. of Plumbing correctly invoke the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel and use it to preclusive effect against Petitioner? 2) Were Petitioner’s double jeopardy protections violated when the State Bd. of Plumbing and the Consumer Protection Division both fined him for the same conduct?
12-03-2015 Bar Admissions
 
12-03-2015 AG No. 86 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Garrett Vincent Williams
 
12-03-2015 No. 33

Please note: this video file is large (1.80 GB) and may take a few minutes to download.		 State of Maryland v. Jacob Bircher

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in finding abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to provide a supplemental instruction on the doctrine of transferred intent?
12-03-2015 No. 46 (2014 T.)

Please note: this video file is large (1.77 GB) and may take a few minutes to download.		 Wicomico County Department of Social Services v. B.A. (reargument)

Issues for reargument – Family Law – 1) In an ongoing instructor-student relationship, can "temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a child" pursuant to FL § 5-701(x)(1) be established through remote electronic communications? 2) Can "temporary care" pursuant to FL § 5-701(x)(1) be established without the mutual consent, expressed or implied, of the one legally charged with the care of the child and of the one purportedly assuming the "temporary care"? 3) Does an instructor who has temporary care or responsibility for a child on a repeated, ongoing basis, commit child abuse within the meaning of FL § 5-701 by sexually explicit communications made via texts, telephone calls or other electronic means to the child, provided there exists a significant connection between the abusive conduct and the in-person care or responsibility?
12-03-2015 No. 36 Montgomery County, Maryland v. Ajay Bhatt

Issues – Transportation Law – 1) Did the lower court err in holding that the 1890 deed from George Dunlop to the Metropolitan Southern Railroad Company did not convey a right of way? 2) Did the County prove that the Respondent’s fence and shed encroached upon the right of way that was originally purchased by the Metropolitan Southern Railroad Company and later conveyed to the county for the Georgetown Branch/Capital Crescent Trail? 3) Is a railroad right of way susceptible to a private claim for adverse possession via an adjacent landowner’s encroachment when the right of way was actively used for a railway line and when there was no evidence of abandonment by the railroad? 4) Did the lower court err in holding that the Respondent acquired title to a former railroad right of way by adverse possession?
November 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-10-2015 Misc. No. 1 In the Matter of the Application of Philip Davis for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
11-10-2015 No. 30 Sam Yonga v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the statutory writ of actual innocence under MD Code Ann. Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 8-301 apply to guilty plea cases? 2) If so, is it clear error and/or an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deny a request for a new trial where the alleged victim and the only witness described in the statement of facts both testified that the alleged events never happened when the trial judge heard testimony at a hearing under §8-301?
11-10-2015 AG No. 87 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. C. Trent Thomas
 
11-10-2015 No. 26 Andrew David Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc., et al.

Issue – Torts – Does the doctrine of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity apply to the noise of a fireworks discharge, based on the facts of this case?
11-09-2015 No. 23 Gail Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether an inverse condemnation claim is covered by the Maryland Tort Claims Act and the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 2) Whether a trespass claim is covered by the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 3) Whether CSA exceeded the scope of this Court’s remand order when it considered an issue expressly disavowed by Respondents? 4) Whether CSA erred when it held that Petitioner failed to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation against Respondents?
11-09-2015 No. 86 (2014 T.) State of Maryland v. Hector Leonel Gutierrez & Edgar Perez-Lazaro

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA usurp the role of the jury by viewing the contested facts in the light most favorable to the defendants and accepting, nearly verbatim, the defendants’ statement of facts? 2) Under Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174 (2010), can a rational jury infer that two roommates had joint constructive possession of cocaine found in common areas of a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment? 3) Did CSA err in finding that the State’s rebuttal argument was improper?
11-09-2015 No. 24 In re: Adoption/Guardianship of Dustin R.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Does an alleged scrivener’s error in the form of an order and docket entry render the order invalid and require dismissal of an appeal, even if it might deprive an extraordinarily medically fragile youth of life-sustaining relief? 2) Did the juvenile court exceed its authority under the guardianship law by ordering DHMH to enter into a plan to obtain the same life-sustaining care for a youth aging out of the system that he has received for the last ten years? 3) Is a juvenile court order requiring a State agency to develop and approve a plan to obtain ongoing life-sustaining care for a ward of the court, entered pursuant to express provisions of the guardianship statute, unconstitutional under the separation-of-powers doctrine?
11-09-2015 No. 25 Baltimore County, Maryland v. Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4

Issue – County Government – Whether public policy, as clearly delineated in the Baltimore County Charter, the Baltimore County Code, controlling Maryland case law, and the separation of powers doctrine, provides an exception to the enforcement of the arbitration award in this case?
11-06-2015 No. 27 Moran Perry v. Asphalt & Concrete Services, Inc.

Issue – Civil Procedure – Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by admitting the evidence of insurance?
11-06-2015 No. 28 Mashea Louise Ray-Simmons a/k/a Tayanna Simmons and Antoinette McGouldrick v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – When there is an allegation of racial and gender discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge, does a prosecutor’s response that she intended to replace the stricken African-American male juror with another African-American male satisfy the requirement of Batson v. Kentucky, that the State a) provide a specific explanation for each challenged strike, which is b) racially and, with respect to gender, neutral?
11-06-2015 No. 29 Felicia Lockett v. Blue Ocean Bristol, LLC

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in relying on the landlord’s claim of certain non-rent charges due and owing to conclude that the tenant was not current on her rent and thus not eligible for relief on her claim for retaliatory eviction in violation of RP § 8-208.1? 2) Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by failing to award attorneys’ fees to a tenant who prevailed on a retaliation defense and counterclaim pursuant to the fee-shifting provision in RP § 8-208.1 without articulating any reasoning for denying fees?
11-05-2015 Bar Admissions
 
11-05-2015

AG No. 66 (2014 T.)

AG No. 8

 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tamara Renee Good
 
11-05-2015 No. 42 Maryland Department of the Environment, et al. v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did the MS4 permit issued by the Md. Dept. of the Environment to Montgomery Co. for the county’s municipal storm sewer system appropriately incorporate by reference publicly available materials and was the requirement for restoration of 20% of pre-2002 developed impervious surfaces specific, measurable, and enforceable? 2) Was the Department’s final decision to issue the permit with a 20% restoration requirement, and a reporting requirement to establish strategies to address wasteload allocations, supported by substantial evidence?
11-05-2015 No. 43 Blue Water Baltimore, et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did the MS4 permits issued by the Md. Dept. of the Environment to Baltimore Co., Anne Arundel Co., and Prince George’s Co. for the counties’ municipal storm sewer system appropriately incorporate by reference publicly available materials and was the requirement for restoration of 20% of pre-2002 developed impervious surfaces specific, measurable, and enforceable? 2) Was the Department’s final decision to issue the permits with a 20% restoration requirement based upon the State’s Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads strategies, and a reporting requirement to establish strategies to address wasteload allocations, supported by substantial evidence?
11-05-2015 No. 44 Blue Water Baltimore, et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment, et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Do the provisions of the MS4 permit that require that the public have an opportunity to review and comment on restoration plans intended to meet the wasteload allocations established for the permittee under applicable total maximum daily loads satisfy state public participation requirements? 2) Do the provisions of the MS4 permit satisfy federal monitoring requirements?
October 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-06-2015 No. 9 DeAndre Ricardo Williams v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did police violate Petitioner’s right to remain silent during a custodial interrogation when he said “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know, - “ to which the police responded “But you don’t have to say nothing” but continued with the interrogation? 2) Did the police interrupting Petitioner while he invoked his right to remain silent convert an unambiguous invocation into an ambiguous invocation? 3) Was Petitioner’s confession involuntary under Md. Common law because the police implied that Petitioner might see outside again if he confessed to a robbery gone bad instead of a premeditated murder? 4) Where the officers were still in the process of explaining Petitioner’s rights to him, did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was being interrogated for purposes of Miranda?
10-06-2015 No. 18 Board of Education of Howard County v. Howard County Education Association - ESP, Inc.

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Whether the Public Schools Labor Relations Board must apply the State Board of Education’s interpretation of statutes within its jurisdiction when exercising its authority to determine if a proposed subject of collective bargaining is illegal because it is precluded by statutory law? 2) Whether conflicting interpretations of the Education Article § 6-201(c)(1) and § 6-510(c)(1) can be reconciled?
10-06-2015 No. 16 Corey Jones v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the doctrine of laches barred Petitioner from seeking coram nobis relief? 2) Was Petitioner’s guilty plea neither knowing nor voluntary, where he was told that he was pleading guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute but a guilty plea was entered to the crime of use of a minor for the purpose of distributing a controlled dangerous substance and where the colloquy was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner understood the nature of the crime?
10-05-2015 No. 21 Matthew D. Meyer v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where (a) the defendant consents to the condition, or (b) the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch,” such as DUI? 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled?
10-05-2015 No. 22 State of Maryland v. Helen C. Rivera

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense, such as DUI, subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch?” 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled to recognize the court’s broad authority in matters of sentencing and probation?
10-05-2015 No. 10 State of Maryland, et al. v. Vadim Roshchin, et al.

Issue – Transportation Law – Does a law enforcement officer have the authority to arrest an individual based on probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a misdemeanor aviation offense in violation of Title 5 of the Transportation Article?
10-05-2015 No. 13 The Brownstones at Park Potomac Homeowners Association v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association

Issue – Real Property – Whether the first trust lender who takes physical possession of a property subject to a homeowners’ declaration and bylaws is liable for homeowners’ dues?
09-29-2015 AG No. 40 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Stephen Rand
 
09-29-2015 AG No. 35 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Mitchell, Jr.
 
09-29-2015 No. 12 George Cameron Seward v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a case of alleged innocence, where the State concedes the new alibi evidence is “material”, can an appellate court rest a decision to reverse the granting of a Writ of Actual Innocence on the belief that trial counsel failed to investigate the alibi, without considering the evidence regarding what counsel did to locate that evidence? 2) Does the State have the right to appeal a trial court decision granting a Writ of Actual Innocence under Md. Code, Criminal Procedure § 8-301 in light of this Court’s prior precedent in Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (2011) and the General Assembly’s decision not to put an appellate right into the statute? 3) Did CSA err in mischaracterizing the record evidence and factual findings by the trial court to the extent that CSA’s decision rests on a misunderstanding of the record?
09-29-2015 No. 17 Timothy Everett Beall v. Connie Holloway-Johnson

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the “malice implicit” in Petitioner’s actions could support an award of punitive damages, contrary to the long-established law that actual, not implied, malice is needed for an award of punitive damages? 2) Did CSA improperly modify the established definition of the “intent” needed to support claims for battery and for a physical contact in violation of Article 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, when it determined that the evidence was sufficient to present the claims to the jury? 3) Did CSA improperly conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24 when the record was devoid of facts to show intent on the part of Petitioner to cause a collision? 4) Did CSA err by affirming the judgment as to negligence but remanding for further proceedings on the claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24, thus allowing the pursuit of multiple recoveries of compensatory damages for the single claim arising from the collision? 5) Did Petitioner waive the damages cap and judgment avoidance afforded by the Local Government Tort Claims Act, having failed to raise the defense until after trial and entry of judgment?
09-28-2015 Bar Admissions
 
09-28-2015 AG No. 58 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alexander Manjanja Chanthunya
 
09-28-2015 No. 15 Kathleen Clough v. Mayor & Council of Hurlock

Issue – Labor & Employment – Does a town charter provision providing that key employees serve at the pleasure of the mayor prohibit the mayor from exercising his or her pleasure by offering a contract of employment to a key employee for a term of years in order to attract a qualified professional to serve in a rural area?
09-28-2015 No. 11 Jacqueline Warner v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is it impossible, as a matter of law, for a person to be guilty of theft from a multiple-party bank account to which she is a party in the absence of any language in the account agreement restricting that party’s use of funds? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a misappropriation conviction where the state never proved and the court did not find that Petitioner was a fiduciary?
September 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-10-2015 Misc. No. 20 (2014 T.) Montgomery County, Maryland v. Jean K. Phillips, et al.

Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals. Question - Does the phrase "the total rate of tax that applies to a transfer subject to the agricultural land transfer tax" in § 13-407(a)(2) and (3) of the Tax-Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland include the "surcharge" imposed by § 13-303(d)?
09-10-2015 No. 8 Lisy Corp v. McCormick & Co., Inc., et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did this Court’s decision in Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471 (2012), deprive Petitioner of its previously-valid jury demand, even though the Duckett ruling was expressly limited to a case involving a Civil Non-Domestic Case Information Report (“CIR”) that had never been served on the opposing party and this Court expressly left open the question of whether the outcome would be different if the plaintiff had served the CIR, as Petitioner has done here? 2) Did Petitioner properly demand its constitutional right to a jury trial when the law at the time of filing its complaint recognized the validity of Petitioner having demanded a jury trial by checking the appropriate box in the CIR? 3) Did Petitioner ever voluntarily and intentionally relinquish its known constitutional right to a jury trial?
09-10-2015 No. 7 Allstate Lien and Recovery Corporation, et al. v. Cedric Stansbury

Issue – Commercial Law – Did CSA misinterpret Commercial Law Article §§ 16-201 - 209 in their conclusion that a lien and recovery company hired to execute a garageman’s lien cannot include its lien enforcement costs and expenses for executing the lien as part of the amount necessary to redeem the vehicle?
09-09-2015 AG No. 74 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Michael Stanalonis
 
09-09-2015 No. 78 (2014 T.) Joseph Simms v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal.
09-09-2015 No. 79 (2014 T.) Lauren McClanahan v. Washington County Department of Social Services

Issues – Family Law – 1) Does the CSA decision that a parent can be strictly liable for child abuse by mental injury by seeking medical help for her five year old based on the child’s disclosures and symptoms, absent any finding that the parent acted intentionally, recklessly, or in bad faith to cause injury, violated the Due Process Clause, Family Law Article §§ 5-701 et seq., and Taylor v. Harford County Department of Social Services, 384 Md. 213 (2004)? 2) Did Petitioner’s attorney waive Petitioner’s objections to the privileged testimony of a therapist by discussing the assertion of privilege by the child’s attorney in the collateral child custody proceeding? 3) Did the ALJ’s decision against Petitioner violate the immunity provisions of Family Law Article § 5-708 and Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-620?
09-03-2015 AG No. 7 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patricia DuVall Storch
 
09-03-2015 No. 6 Jakeem Roy v. Sandra B. Dackman, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it found that a board-certified pediatrician was not qualified as an expert to address the nature and extent of Petitioner’s injuries from childhood lead exposure? 2) Did CSA utilize the incorrect standard of review when it ignored the initial finding that the pediatrician was qualified to offer medical causation opinions and then reviewed his qualifications de novo?
09-03-2015 AG No. 28 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Matthew Richard Young
 
09-03-2015 No. 5 Ruth Belche May, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Philip Royce May v. Air & Liquid Systems, Corp., etc., et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by adopting a rule that any replacement of a component excuses the original manufacturer from any duty to warn without considering whether replacement of that component constituted a “substantial modification” of the condition of the product? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to the Petitioner to warn of exposure to asbestos dust created by maintenance of their pumps’ asbestos-containing parts because Petitioner could not establish that he was the first person to work on the pump after it was sold under the facts of this case where a) Respondents conceded they had a duty to warn the first worker who serviced the pump; b) the pumps were in an identical condition to their original sale when Petitioner worked on them; c) the pumps required asbestos-containing parts and the ordinary use of the pumps degraded these parts, mandating that they be replaced; d) warnings were possible and eventually given after Petitioner was no longer working with the pumps; and e) the risk was not only insurable but, in fact, insured? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to Petitioner when neither CSA nor the trial court performed a fact-specific duty analysis of the factors under Patton v. U.S. Rugby?
09-03-2015 No. 3 Donald Richard Twigg v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When an appellate court holds that lesser included offenses should have been merged into the greater offense and it vacates the sentences that were merged for the lesser offenses, does the appellate court have the authority to vacate the sentence imposed for the greater offense and remand for re-sentencing for that offense where there has been no challenge on appeal to the legality of the conviction or sentence for the greater offense? 2) Did CSA have authority and/or discretion to remand this case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing after holding that several of Petitioner’s sentences should merge? 3) Is Petitioner’s concern that, on remand, his sentence may be illegally increased not ripe for review and without merit?
09-02-2015 Bar Admissions
 
09-02-2015 No. 1 Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association v. Prince George's County, Maryland on behalf of Prince George's County Police Department

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the arbitrator’s award in this case under the theory that the decision was contrary to an explicit public policy and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the employees’ Weingarten rights under the collective bargaining agreement was too expansive? 2) If CSA erred, did the arbitrator’s order of reinstatement and back pay as the remedy for the violation exceed his authority?
09-02-2015 No. 2 Mario Sibug v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where a criminal defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial, must a court find that the defendant has regained competence before he or she can be tried? 2) Did the trial court err when it found Petitioner to be competent at sentencing without ordering a new competency evaluation or otherwise taking new evidence on the question of Petitioner’s competency?
09-02-2015 No. 4 Tower Oaks Boulevard, LLC v. Brent W. Procida, et al., Substitute Trustees

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Does a third party have standing to challenge a limited liability company’s authority to prosecute or defend against litigation? 2) Where a limited liability company’s operating agreement vests power to act for the company in two persons acting jointly, and one cannot or will not act, is the other acting individually authorized to act for the company? 3) Is CSA’s holding that an operating agreement’s provision authorizing its manager to execute and sign all documents in each member’s name does not allow the manager to amend the operating agreement itself inconsistent with the Limited Liability Act’s policy to give the maximum effect to the principles of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of operating agreements?