Close

Colors

Text Size

-A A +A
  Opinions Search   Search Tips

Court of Appeals Webcast Archive 2017 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 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
06-01-2018 AG No. 9 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Roger Norman Powell

 
06-01-2018 No. 77 In re: Adoption/Guardianship of C.E.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Does a CINA child have a protected interest in achieving a timely permanency plan of adoption that transcends his parents’ right to raise him, where the three (3) year old child has resided in the same relatives’ home since birth and where the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is “unachievable … in the foreseeable future”? 2) Is it an error of law for a court to change a CINA child’s permanency plan in guardianship proceeding conducted pursuant to Family Law §5-323? 3) Was the court’s application of its findings of exceptional circumstances to justify custody and guardianship to relatives instead of using the exceptional circumstances to support a grant of guardianship, an error of law in contravention of the statute’s clear preference for adoption over custody and guardianship? 4) Did the juvenile court err when it failed to find that the CINA child’s father was unfit to remain the child’s legal father in light of its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was no likelihood that father would ever be able to safely care for the child? 5) Did the juvenile court err as a matter of law in its exceptional circumstances analysis, by elevating an incidental “parental” relationship over the child’s best interests in achieving the permanence afforded by adoption?  
06-01-2018

No. 79

 Jason Adam Fallin v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a child sex abuse case, did the trial court err by allowing an expert witness in child abuse disclosure to opine that the alleged victim showed no “signs of fabrication or coaching” and that the expert had no concerns about fabrication in her pretrial interviews with her? 2) Did CSA incorrectly hold that its opinion in Yount v. State, 99 Md.App. 207 (1994) “narrow[ed]” this Court’s opinion in Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266 (1988), such that “it is clear that in certain scenarios, an expert witness may testify as to whether they believe one is fabricating or not”? 3) Was the trial court required to instruct jurors that the credibility of another witness is not a proper subject of expert testimony? 4) When the trial court allowed a non-licensed social services investigator to repeat what the alleged victim told her under the tender years exception to the hearsay rule, did CSA incorrectly hold that the error was harmless? 5) Did Petitioner fail to preserve his claim regarding the expert’s testimony where he did not make contemporaneous objections or request a continuing objection? 6) Did Petitioner fail to preserve or affirmatively waive any error in the trial court’s curative instruction where he suggested the language used by the court and, after the court gave the instruction and asked if it was satisfactory, he stated that it was?  
06-01-2018 No. 80 Stanley Sugarman, et al. v. Chauncey Liles, Jr.

Issues – Torts – 1) Respondent’s medical expert opined that lead exposure caused cognitive deficits in two distinct areas measured on neuropsychological evaluation. But she conceded that the epidemiological data she relied upon did not show a causal association between lead exposure and either metric. Did CSA err when it held that her opinion had a sufficient factual basis? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the expert had sufficient basis to opine that lead exposure caused Respondent to suffer IQ loss? 3) The damages experts’ opinions that Respondent, a high school graduate accepted to two four-year colleges and enrolled in one, has incurred millions of dollars in loss of earning capacity were based on assumptions not supported by the evidence. Did CSA err when it concluded that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the insufficient factual and methodological bases underlying the expert’s opinions went to the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence?  
05-31-2018 Bar Admissions

 
05-31-2018 AG No. 83 (2009 T.)

Please note: This case was combined for arguments with AG No. 44.
 		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Walter Lloyd Blair
 
05-31-2018 AG No. 44

Please note: This case was combined for arguments with AG No. 83 (2009 T.)		 In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Walter Lloyd Blair to the Bar of Maryland
05-31-2018 No. 78 Allan Jackson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that evidence had been properly authenticated, despite acknowledging that the evidence was not what its proponent claimed? 2) Can records of regularly conducted business activities be authenticated through inferences and “common knowledge,” even though Rule 5-902 requires “[t]estimony of authenticity”?  
May 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
05-08-2018 No. 82 Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. v. Ashley Partlow

Issue – Torts – Did the CSA, relying on Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, 366 Md. 29 (2001), err in imposing a duty on Kennedy Krieger to an individual who was not enrolled in the research study at issue?
05-08-2018 No. 84 Clement Reynolds v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Was Petitioner denied due process when the trial court permitted the prosecutor to question him about “what he did not tell the police” about his alibi defense, even though the omissions were a result of Petitioner’s post-arrest, post-Miranda invocation of silence and were not inconsistencies with his trial testimony?
05-07-2018 No. 72 Nancy K. Kopp, et al. v. Dennis R. Schrader, et al.

Issues – State Government – 1) Does the Governor have the power under the Md. Constitution to withdraw the nomination of a recess appointee before a Senate vote and then reappoint that nominee during the interim, thereby circumventing Senate confirmation or rejection? 2) Does the General Assembly have the power under the Md. Constitution to enact a budget restriction prohibiting the expenditure of funds to pay the salaries of cabinet secretaries whose recess appointments circumvented the Senate’s confirmation power? 3) Does the Treasurer have an obligation to decline to disburse salary funds where the disbursement would conflict with a budget restriction and there is thus no appropriation for the expenditure? 4) Does the State have sovereign immunity from any claims for retrospective back pay from the State Treasury?
05-07-2018 No. 31 Albert Gustav Givens v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal
05-07-2018 No. 67 Bernadette Fowler Lamson v. Montgomery County, Maryland

Issue – State Government – Did CSA err in ruling that a supervisor may maintain off-line records concerning employees under her supervision to shield them from production under the MPIA?
05-07-2018 No. 81 Washington Gas Light Company v. Maryland Public Service Commission, et al.

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the legislative-intent provision of a statute “acts as a substantive restriction” of the statute’s unambiguous substantive terms? 2) Did the Commission err when it added a new eligibility requirement for infrastructure replacement projects that is not found in the substantive provisions of the STRIDE statute, Public Utilities Article §4-210?
05-02-2018 Bar Admissions

 
05-02-2018 No. 68 Brian Donlon v. Montgomery County Public Schools

Issues – State Personnel & Pensions – 1) What is the relationship of county school employees to the state in the context of Md. whistleblower protection laws? 2) What distinctions matter in Md.’s application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel?
05-02-2018 No. 71 Carl Franklin Burnside v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where Petitioner was on trial for a felony drug offense and the theory of the defense was clear and consistent throughout the trial, did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to rule upon the admissibility for impeachment purposes of Petitioner’s prior felony drug conviction prior to Petitioner’s election of whether or not to testify? 2) Did CSA misapply the harmless error standard, as recently reiterated by this Court in Porter v. State, 455 Md. 220 (2017), in finding that the trial court’s error in permitting the impeachment of a defense witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? 3) Did CSA err in failing to find unpreserved Petitioner’s claim that the trial court erred in not ruling on the admissibility of his prior drug conviction before his election whether to testify?
05-02-2018 No. 75 WSC/2005 LLC, et al. v. Trio Ventures Associates, et al.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does a trial court have the power under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act (“MUAA”) to vacate an arbitration award that is irrational or in manifest disregard of the law? 2) Is an arbitral award that excuses a non-breaching party from proving that a condition precedent would have been satisfied but for the breach a manifest disregard of Md. law or otherwise irrational because it (a) eliminates the requirement that plaintiffs must prove causation of their injury; (b) deprives the non-breaching party of the benefit of its bargain; and (c) penalizes the breaching party and forfeits valuable contract rights? 3) Does this Court’s decision in Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congregation, 352 Md. 31, 720 A.2d 912 (1998), entitle a party who is granted an arbitration award to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in court proceedings unsuccessfully pursued by the losing party, or does a trial court have the discretion to deny such an award as in any other case in which legal fees and costs are sought? 4) Is this case the appropriate vehicle for this Court to further explain a trial court’s review authority under the MUAA? 5) Should an arbitration award based on a legal interpretation of a contract be vacated by a legally different interpretation of the contract presented on appeal by the losing party?
05-02-2018 No. 85 Linda H. Lamone v. Nancy Lewin, et al.

Issue – Election Law – Did the trial court err in entering a preliminary injunction that requires Appellant to remove the name of a candidate from the ballot for the 2018 primary election, where the statutory deadlines have passed, laches bars the relief ordered, removal at this late date will disrupt the orderly process of the election and other, less disruptive, relief is available?
April 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
04-10-2018 AG No. 14 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Benjamin N. Ndi

 
04-10-2018 AG No. 2 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeneba Jalloh (Ghatt)

 
04-10-2018 No. 73 In re: J.C.N.

Issues – Health General – 1) Did CSA err when it found that Petitioner’s challenge to the involuntary admission was moot? 2) Did CSA err when it concluded that the hospital complied with the 10 day deadline for the involuntary admission hearing and that dismissal was inappropriate? 3) Did CSA err when it found substantial support in the record for the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Petitioner presented a danger to the life or safety of herself or others?  
04-09-2018 AG No. 86 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Steven Anthony Lang and Olayemi Isaac Falusi

 
04-09-2018 No. 74 Julius Devincentz, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err by prohibiting a defense witness from testifying that the complainant was an untruthful person? 2) Did the trial court err by disallowing a defense witness’s testimony that during an argument he observed between the complainant and the Petitioner, the complainant threatened to get Petitioner in trouble? 3) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was required to make a formal proffer regarding the substance and relevance of the evidence at issue in order to preserve for appellate review claims (1) and (2) above, and that the exception to the proffer requirement did not apply, despite it being clear from the record what the testimony of the defense witness would have established if it had been admitted?  
04-06-2018 No. 70
 		 In re: Adoption/Guardianship of H.W.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Did CSA improperly proscribe juvenile courts from considering factors critical to the determination of a child’s best interests when it held that, in determining whether to terminate parental rights, juvenile courts may not consider either the emotional effects of a change in custody upon the child or the stability and certainty of the child’s future? 2) In determining that it is in the child’s best interests to terminate the parental rights of an incarcerated parent whom the child has never met, did the juvenile court permissibly consider the following factors (1) the potential emotional effect on the child of a change of custody; (2) the instability and uncertainty of the child’s future in the custody of the parent; and (3) the stability and certainty of the child’s future in the custody of the prospective adoptive parents?
04-06-2018 No. 66 SVF Riva Annapolis, LLC, et al. v. Moreen Elizabeth Gilroy, et al.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA usurp the role of the legislature when, under the guise of statutory construction, it remedied a purported defect in the “use and possession exception” (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-108(d)(2)(i)) to Md.’s statute of repose? 2) Did CSA errr in insisting on an expansive interpretation of § 5-108(d)(2)(i) that conflicts with this Court’s prior, narrowly-tailored interpretation? 3) Did CSA err in broadly interpreting one exception to Md.’s statute of repose, effectively nullifying the statute as set forth in § 5-108(a)? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant the respondents’ motions for summary judgment based upon § 5-108(d)(2)(i)? 5) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant respondents’ motions for summary judgment even though alternative grounds existed to affirm summary judgment solely based upon questions of law?
04-05-2018 Bar Admissions
 
04-05-2018 AG No. 13 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. William Michael Jacobs

 
04-05-2018 No. 76 C&B Construction, Inc. v. Jeffrey Dashiell, et al.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Does §9-204(a) of the Real Property Article, the Maryland Construction Trust Fund Statute, limit its application to projects covered by the Maryland Mechanics’ Lien law and Little Miller Act even though the plain language of the statute as a whole and §9-204(a) specifically contain no such limitation? 2) Did the trial court err in granting judgment to Respondents despite evidence showing that funds received by the general contractor were earmarked for payment to Petitioners.
04-05-2018 No. 65 Brian Tate v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Was Petitioner’s guilty plea record sufficient to conclude he understood the nature and elements of first-degree murder, despite the fact that he was a minor with diminished mental capacity and no one addressed the nature and elements of the crime on the record?
March 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
03-06-2018 AG No. 42 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Stephen Howard Sacks
 
03-06-2018 JD No. 2 In the Matter of the Honorable Mary C. Reese

 
03-05-2018 AG. Nos. 40 & 75 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Sperling, et al.
 
03-05-2018 AG No. 4 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dana Paul
 
03-05-2018 No. 60 Albert Otto v. State of Maryland 

Issue – Criminal Procedure – On the question of applying the common law Rule of Completeness for single statements, did the lower courts err after Respondent submitted a paragraph-long snippet of a 13-page long jailhouse conversation as evidence of Petitioner’s consciousness of guilt when; (1) the trial court acknowledged there were “muddled” thoughts going to multiple motivations of Petitioner, yet refused to provide the jury any other context or part of the conversation due to Respondent’s objection, (2) the correct legal standard and presumption “universally conceded” under the common law is the rest of the conversation was out of fairness to be provided to the jury as requested by Petitioner, not the other way around, and (3) CSA acknowledges it may have disagreed with the narrow “subject” definition construed by the trial court, yet did not find any error in the trial court’s refusal to provide any part of the “remainder” to the jury?  
03-02-2018 No. 63 William Louis Kranz v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Where the trial court had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s post-conviction petition and rendered a valid judgment from which Petitioner, while he was in custody, sought timely appellate review under MD Code Ann., Crim. Proc § 7-109, did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that it had been divested of appellate jurisdiction, after having granted Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal and appellate briefing was complete, because during the three-year long pendency of his application for leave to appeal Petitioner was no longer imprisoned or on parole or probation?
03-02-2018 No. 64

Arguments on Motion


Arguments on Merits		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, et al. v. Ty Clevenger

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court err in issuing a writ of mandamus directing Petitioner to investigate a complaint against three members of the Maryland Bar where exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters is vested in the Court of Appeals and Bar Counsel has discretion to determine whether an investigation is warranted? 2) Did the trial court err in vacating its prior order sealing the proceedings where Md. Rule 19-711 expressly provides that all attorney disciplinary complaints and investigations are confidential unless and until formal charges are brought against an attorney?
03-01-2018 Bar Admissions

 
03-01-2018 AG No. 4 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Claire L.K.K. Ogilvie
 
03-01-2018 No. 62 Estate of Charles Howard Zimmerman, Robert Clayton Stevens, Personal Representative v. Erich E. Blatter, et ux.
 

Issues – Real Property – 1) Do new Real Property §§ 14-601 through 14-621 and new rules 12-801 through 12-811, all of which concern quiet title actions and which took effect during the pendency of this appeal apply to this appeal? 2) If so, do the new procedural statutes and rules eliminate any requirement in prior law that a quiet title action is subject to automatic dismissal for non-joinder of a deceased record owner who has no personal representative? 3) If the answer to question 1 is no, what is the standard of review (de novo or abuse or discretion) of a trial court’s determinations under Rule 2-211? 4) If the answer to question 1 is no, did the trial court err in its determination under 2-211(c) that the case could proceed among the parties before it? 5) If the answer to question 4 is yes, did the trial court’s decision on Petitioners’ counterclaim for trespass q.c.f. become law of the case as a result of Petitioners’ failure to present, raise and argue the denial of their counterclaim? 6) Alternatively does this Court recognize the concept of a judgment having multiple and severable parts, as CSA recognized in Harrison v. Harrison, 109 Md.App. 652 (1996)? 7) If the answer to question 5 or question 6 is yes, did CSA err in reversing and dismissing that part of the trial court’s judgment concerning the counterclaim? 8) If the answers to the above questions do not materially change the disposition of the case, did CSA err in ordering a dismissal of the entire case for failure to join a necessary party rather than remanding to allow the joinder of a necessary party?
03-01-2018 No. 59 Elizabeth Hanson-Metayer v. Leslie Rach

Issues - Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Did the District Court A) exceed its jurisdiction by denying a motion to stay despite the dicta in McKlveen v. Monika Courts Condominium, 208 Md.App. 369 (2012) or B) commit constitutional error by denying a motion to dismiss or demand for a jury trial given the claims at issue had identical counterparts already pending in the circuit court with a jury demanded? 2) Did the circuit court, on appeal, erroneously find the case to be moot despite the fact that Respondent sought to use the very judgment being challenged to obtain a warrant of restitution, that the judgment has multiple collateral consequences, and the exception to mootness doctrine articulated in Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556 (1986) applies?
February 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
02-06-2018 No. 55 James E. Bowie v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile nonhomicide inmate have standing to challenge his life sentence under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny? 2) Are life sentences for nonhomicide crimes committed by a child unconstitutional because Md. Law does not afford the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham?
02-06-2018 No. 54 Daniel Carter v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile homicide inmate have standing to challenge a life sentence he is presently serving based on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), on the theory that the sentence does not afford him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation and the sentencing judge did not comply with the process set forth by those cases to insure that such a sentence is only imposed on the rare incorrigible juvenile offender, and is such a challenge ripe for review? 2) Do life sentences imposed on juvenile offenders in Md. afford them a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation? 3) If so, did the sentencing judge consider the distinctive and mitigating aspects of youth in the manner required by Miller and Montgomery (and made retroactive by the latter) to ensure that such a sentence was imposed only on the rare incorrigible juvenile homicide offender?
02-06-2018 No. 56 Matthew Timothy McCullough v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the reasoning of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny apply to a 100-year sentence that is the aggregate of shorter sentences for multiple crimes committed during the same incident? 2) If so, did the 100-year sentence in this case afford the juvenile nonhomicide offender the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham? 3) May challenges to parole policies be raised as a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence?
02-06-2018 No. 57
Arguments on Motions

Arguments on Merits
 		 State of Maryland v. Phillip James Clements

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal? 2) Did the trial court err in considering, and granting, Respondent’s motion to set aside an “illegal” sentence?
02-05-2018 AG No. 97 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ross D. Hecht

 
02-05-2018 No. 48 Rina Calvo v. Montgomery County, Maryland

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Where the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission is statutorily presumed to be correct and the appellate courts have held that whether an injury “arose out of and in the course of employment” constitutes a question of fact, should the trial court’s grant of summary judgment where Petitioner prevailed before the Commission be reviewed? 2) Should this Court review the holding that, as a matter of law, the “special mission” exception to the “going and coming” rule cannot be considered, notwithstanding that Petitioner was on her way to a different assignment, at a different work site, at the direction of her employer, in the furtherance of her employer’s business, and on her normal off day? 3) Given MD case law holding an injury compensable when it occurs in a place the employee would not have been “but for” her employment and/or while engaged in an activity “incidental” to her employment and Petitioner was involved in an accident only because she was traveling to training at the direction of her employer, did CSA err in finding that Petitioner’s claim was not “in the course of” her employment?
02-05-2018 No. 53 Thoyt Hackney v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the “prison mailbox rule,” under which a pleading is deemed to have been filed by a pro se prisoner when the prisoner delivers the pleading to prison authorities for mailing, apply to the filing of a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. Proc. § 7-103(b), which states that unless “extraordinary cause is shown,” a petition “may not be filed later than 10 years from the imposition of sentence,” and Md. Rule 1-322(a), which states that pleadings “shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court”? 2) Under the “extraordinary cause” provision of § 7-103(b), is the ten-year deadline for filing a petition for post-conviction relief tolled or otherwise extended when a pro se prisoner delivers his or her petition to prison authorities for delivery to the post-conviction court prior to expiration of the ten-year deadline? 3) Did the post-conviction court err in dismissing Petitioner’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief on grounds that it was not timely filed within the ten-year deadline where Petitioner was sentenced on October 23, 1998, his petition includes a certificate of service dated October 20, 2008, his petition was postmarked October 22, 2008, and date-stamped as received by the clerk’s office on October 24, 2008, and Petitioner was incarcerated when he filed his petition?
02-02-2018 No. 51 Heather Stanley Christian v. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Associates of Maryland, LLC, et al.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA apply the correct legal standard in affirming, in part the trial court’s prior determination that Petitioner did not have a good faith basis under Md. Rule 1-341 to bring a claim for fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and wrongful termination/constructive discharge where CSA viewed the record in the light most favorable to Respondent, ignored evidence and inferences that supported Petitioner’s good faith basis to bring those claims, and did not instruct the trial court to review on remand the entirety of information supporting Petitioner’s claims rather than solely the evidence admitted at trial? 2) Should this Court adopt the legal standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) in determining the movant’s burden of proof for establishing damages for a claimed violation of Md. Rule 1-341, namely that where a complaint contains both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, the movant may only recover attorney’s fees which would not have been incurred but for the frivolous claims?
02-02-2018 No. 50 Robert Wheeler v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely and proper demand under Courts & Jud. Proc., §§ 10-1002 and 1003, for the presence of all persons in the chain of custody, is it legal error for the trial court to admit drug evidence where the State fails to call the “packaging” officer as a witness; or as CSA held in this case, is the admission of drug evidence under such circumstances subject to review for abuse of discretion? 2) Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of the drug evidence in view of the lack of a proper chain of custody?
02-01-2018 Bar Admissions

 
02-01-2018 AG No. 5 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gregory Allen Slate
 
02-01-2018 No. 37 Brian Grimm v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a defendant challenges the reliability of a drug-sniffing dog overall and the reliability of the dog’s alert to the possible presence of drugs in a vehicle driven by the defendant, in accordance with Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), and the trial court rules that the dog’s alert established probable cause to search the vehicle, what is the applicable standard of appellate review? 2) Whatever standard of review applies, did the trial court err in ruling that the police had probable cause the search the vehicle driven by Petitioner? 3) Even if the police did not have probable cause to search Petitioner’s car, should this Court decline to apply the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule because the police relied on the drug-sniffing dog’s alert in objective good faith?
January 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
01-09-2018 Misc. No. 5 (2016 T.) In the Matter of the Honorable Pamela J. White

Judicial disabilities matter.
01-09-2018 No. 35 April Ademiluyi v. Maryland State Board of Elections; Administrator State Board of Elections, Linda Lamone; State Governor, Lawrence Hogan; Judge Ingrid Turner

Election appeal.
01-09-2018 No. 49 State of Maryland v. Bashunn Christopher Phillips

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Was Respondent precluded from taking an interlocutory appeal of a non-constitutional evidentiary ruling by the trial court? 2) Are the statutory limitations on State appeals inapplicable to State requests for in banc review?
01-08-2018 AG No. 90 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Anna G. Aita
 
01-08-2018 No. 52 State of Maryland v. Robert Clifford Weddington

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in holding that where a criminal defendant expresses dissatisfaction with counsel in a letter to the court less than two weeks prior to a trial date, received by the clerk’s office four days before trial, and of which the trial judge was not aware at the time of trial, the defendant has satisfactorily invoked Md. Rule 4-215, and did not waive the rule by failing to express his dissatisfaction to the judge during trial?
01-08-2018 No. 42 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Megan E. Smith

Issue – Transportation – Did the ALJ err in dismissing an Order of Suspension for a driver who had a breath-test result of .18 blood-alcohol concentration because the investigating officer refused to allow her to visit the rest room before submitting to a breath test, where the officer (1) had reasonable grounds to believe that she had been driving while under the influence of alcohol and 2) fully and correctly advised her of the administrative sanctions that could be imposed?
01-05-2018 No. 36 Leroy C. Bell, Jr. and Bon Secours Hospital Baltimore, Inc. v. Patricia Chance, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Brandon Mackey

Issue – Torts – In a wrongful death action based on a suicide, is a defendant psychiatrist who discharged the decedent instead of continuing his involuntary commitment entitled to civil immunity under Health-General Article § 10-618 and Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 440 Md. 573, 103 A.3d 658 (2014)?
01-05-2018 No. 29 State of Maryland v. Crystal Brookman; State of Maryland v. Randy Carnes

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Do sanctions, imposed by a trial court in conjunction with participation in the problem-solving Drug Court programs in Respondents’ criminal cases, not constitute court action subject to appellate review where there is no finding of a violation of probation? 2) If properly before CSA for review, did the trial court properly impose the Drug Court menu sanctions provided for in Respondents’ cases for Respondents’ respective violations of the conditions of their Drug Court participation? 3) Is this controversy moot? 4) Does Rule 16-206(e) permit a drug court to impose a sanction involving the loss of a defendant’s liberty in violation of the drug court agreement? 5) Is a Drug Court sanction involving a loss of liberty imposed in violation of the protocols of Rule 16-206(e) and the drug court agreement a reviewable judgment pursuant to an application for leave to appeal?
01-04-2018 Bar Admissions
 
01-04-2018 Misc. No. 22 In re the Application of David Louis Silverman, Sr. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
01-04-2018 No. 44 In the Matter of Sue A. Weintraub for the Appointment of a Guardian of the Property

Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did CSA err in finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s motion to vacate?
01-04-2018 No. 38 Amy Shealer v. George Straka

Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that probate proceedings are to be stayed upon the filing of a caveat petition before judicial probate or after administrative probate, continuing the procedure under predecessor statutes recognized by Keene v. Corse, 80 Md. 20 (1984) and its progeny, despite the enactment of Estates & Trusts Article §5-207(b) which omits any language concerning a stay of proceedings from its text? 2) Was the harmless error standard satisfied by merely showing that the underlying decision from which an appeal is sought is final and binding upon the parties?
December 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
12-05-2017 No. 27 Melissa Rodriguez et al. v. Larry Cooper et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err in applying the cap on non-economic damages under Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. § 11-108? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to enter judgment against the State?
12-05-2017 No. 28 State of Maryland v. Neiswanger Management Services LLC et al.

Issues – Health – 1) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen. § 19-345.3 authorizes a court to grant “injunctive relief” to remedy violations of the discharge-related provisions of the Patient’s Bill of Rights, the statute does not authorize “broad injunctive relief” barring “company practices” that violate those provisions? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen.§ 19-344 confers responsibility on the Attorney General for “enforcement” of certain of its provisions, it does not authorize the Attorney General to seek, or a court to grant, a judicial injunction enforcing those provisions?
12-05-2017 No. 43 Precision Small Engines, Inc. et al. v. City of College Park et al.

Issue – Land Use – Did CSA err in declaring that the memorandum of understanding between the City of College Park and the county restricts the authority of the city to issue non-residential building and occupation permits?
12-04-2017 Misc. No. 4 Amber Ben-Davies v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.; Bryione K. Moore v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland Question - Is the legal rate of post-judgment interest on a judgment awarded in a breach of contract action where the underlying contract is a residential lease ten percent (10%) as stated in Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-107(a) or is it six percent (6%) as stated in Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc § 11-107(b), which states that it is applicable to "a money judgment for rent of residential premises," where the judgment in the breach of contract action does not specifically delineate what portion, if any, of the judgment was awarded for unpaid rent?'
12-04-2017 No. 39 Patricia Lamalfa v. Janis Hearn et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Were Defense Exhibits 2-5 inadmissible hearsay due to the failure of authentication as a condition precedent to the business records exception to the hearsay rule? 2) Did the trial court err by admitting medical records pursuant to Md. Rule 5-703 without an appropriate foundation for establishing the truthfulness of the records?
12-04-2017 No. 26 Victoria Seaborne-Worsley v. Jeffrey Mintiens

Issues – Torts – 1) In an automobile collision case, can the negligence of a permissive driver be imputed to a sole-owner passenger who is seeking recovery for injuries caused by a negligent third-party driver? 2) Was the non-party driver’s negligent parking a proximate cause of the accident?
12-01-2017 AG No. 113 (2016 T.) In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement for Vaughn Miles Mungin to the Bar of Maryland
 
12-01-2017 No. 22 State of Maryland v. Casey O. Johnson

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA properly conclude that the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk of respondent’s car based on drug evidence found on the person of her front-seat passenger?
12-01-2017 No. 41 June Diane Duffy, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James F. Piper v. CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the term “arising” used in § 2 of the original statute of repose actually means “accruing” in contravention of this Court’s holding in John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Respondent had a constitutional vested right to repose prior to the effective date of the 1991 amendment to the statute which explicitly exempted manufacturers of asbestos-containing products from the scope of repose? 3) As applied, does CSA’s decision violate Petitioner’s constitutional right to access the courts?
11-30-2017 Bar Admissions
 		  
11-30-2017 No. 40 Kyle Blackstone et al. v. Dinesh Sharma et al.; Terrance Shanahan et al. v. Seyed Marvastian et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a mortgage foreclosure action, which is a purely in rem proceeding against the subject real property, a “consumer claim” for “money owed” under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”)? 2) Is filing a mortgage foreclosure action, which by statute is not “doing business in this State,” nevertheless “doing business as a collection agency in this State” under MCALA? 3) Is the CSA’s ruling in Finch v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 212 Md.App. 748 (2013) – i.e., that a judgment in favor of an unlicensed debt collection agency is void as opposed to voidable – applicable to mortgage foreclosure judgments?
11-30-2017 No. 45 Laura O'Sullivan et al. Substitute Trustees v. Jeffrey Altenburg et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?
11-30-2017 No. 47 Martin S. Goldberg et al. Substitute Trustees v. Martha Lynn Neviaser et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Can the trial court dismiss a foreclosure because a foreign statutory trust lacks a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), despite established Md. authority holding that entities, such as a trustee of the trust and its substitute trustees, may enforce a promissory note indorsed in blank in their possession, regardless of who owns the debt or the foreign statutory trust’s legal status? 2) Does pursuing a foreclosure constitute “doing business as a collection agency” in Md. under MCALA? 3) Is a foreclosure action a “consumer claim” to collect “money owed” under MCALA? 4) Does a foreign statutory trust that owns mortgage assets fall under MCALA’s “trust company” exemption?
November 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-07-2017 AG No. 54 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Alexander Giannetti, Jr.
 
11-07-2017 No. 20 The Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee et al. v. Heinz Otto Georg et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Does judicial estoppel require a showing of an intention to mislead the court apart from a demonstration that the party “has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that a judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create ‘the perception that either the first or the second court was misled[.]’” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001)? 2) Is a ruling that a party lacked standing to assert its claims, but subject to the caveat that if the court was found to be wrong with regard to standing, the party failed to prove its case on the merits, a contingent ruling on the merits and thus not a final judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, or are the ruling on standing and the ruling on the merits alternative rulings, each entitled to preclusive effect?
11-06-2017 Misc No. 2 In the Matter of the Application of Maso Toussaint Hamilton for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
11-06-2017 Misc. No. 16 In the Matter of the Application of Mark Andrew Overall for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
11-06-2017 Misc. No. 17 In the Matter of the Application of Solon Phillips for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
11-06-2017 AG No. 75 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mariatu Kargbo
 
11-03-2017 No. 17 Barrington Dean Watts v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Are intent to frighten and battery merely varieties of a single crime under Md’s assault statute or are they separate crimes, thus requiring individualized jury unanimity? 2) Is Petitioner’s claim of error unpreserved where Petitioner did not ask for the unanimity instruction he now claims was mandatory?
11-03-2017 No. 23 William A. Dabbs, Jr., et al. v. Anne Arundel County

Issues – County Government – 1) Did the lower courts err in determining that “…the rough proportionality test [or the rational nexus test] has no application to development impact fees. . .where monetary exactions are imposed,” in contravention of Howard County v. JJM, 301 Md. 256 (1984)? 2) Did the lower courts err in permitting the retroactive application of legislation and not finding a taking under Article III, section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?
11-02-2017 No. 25 Harold Eugene Williams v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is a conviction that is more than fifteen years old irrelevant as a matter of law to a character witness’s opinion about a defendant? 2) Were questions revealing Petitioner’s prior conviction, which occurred at least a decade before any of his character witnesses had met him, irrelevant to their opinions as to his reputation for peacefulness? 3) Were questions revealing Petitioner’s prior conviction substantially more prejudicial than they were probative of the witnesses’ opinions as to his reputation for peacefulness?
11-02-2017 No. 21 In the Matter of the Albert G. Aaron Living Trust

Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did the trial court err in entering an order approving restatement of the living trust in which the court approved the Trustees’ restatement of the trust with respect to the survival of the Aaron Family Foundation?
October 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-11-2017 No. 9 Jerry Harris v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by issuing a missing witness instruction concerning Petitioner’s mother, without conducting any inquiry or making any findings as to whether they had a relationship that would have rendered her peculiarly available to the defense? 2) Is a mother/son relationship, without more, sufficient to establish that the mother is peculiarly available to the son for purposes of the missing witness rule? 3) Did CSA err in finding that the trial court committed harmless error when it allowed a detective to testify that Petitioner had invoked his right to an attorney during a police interview?
10-11-2017 No. 18 Waterman Family Limited Partnership et al. v. Kathleen B. Boomer et al.

Issues – Local Government – 1) May county commissioners rescind an express approval in accordance with Local Government Article (“LG”) § 4-416 to place newly annexed land in a zoning classification that allows a land use or density different from the land use or density specified in the zoning classification of the county or agency with planning and zoning jurisdiction over the land prior to its annexation? 2) May county commissioners rescind an express approval in accordance with LG § 4-416 allowing development of annexed land for land uses substantially different than the authorized use, or at a substantially higher density, not exceeding 50%, than could be granted for the proposed development, in accordance with the zoning classification of the county applicable at the time of the annexation?
10-11-2017 No. 16 James H. Ellis et al. v. Olin L.McKenzie et al.

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Does the Dormant Mineral Interests Act (“DMIA”) violate Article 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights and Article III, § of the Md. Constitution by retrospectively taking a vested property interest from a mineral owner and transferring it to a surface owner without compensation? 2) Is a notice of intent to preserve a severed mineral interest effective if recorded by the personal representative of a deceased owner’s estate while an action to terminate the interest is pending against the decedent’s descendants but not against the personal representative?
10-10-2017 No. 15 Maryland Office of People's Counsel et al. v. Maryland Public Service Commission et al.

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission make an error of law by failing to conclude that the premium that PHI’s shareholders received as a result of its acquisition by Exelon Corp. violated § 6-105 of the Public Utilities Article and the regulatory compact governing the obligations and rights of monopolistic utilities in that it harmed customers and was inconsistent with the public interest? 2) Does the Commission’s unexplained conclusion that allegations of harm to the distributed generation and renewable energy markets resulting from Exelon’s acquisition of PHI were “speculation” render the Commission’s decision to approve the acquisition arbitrary and capricious?
10-10-2017 No. 14 Rudy Ismael Manchame-Guerra v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did this Court’s decision in Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105 (2015), alter the threshold a factual proffer must satisfy to permit questioning of a witness’s subjective expectation of a benefit under Md. Rule 5-616(a)(4)? 2) Did the trial court err in prohibiting defense counsel from questioning the State’s main witness about whether he subjectively expected a benefit in exchange for his statements and testimony in this case?
10-10-2017 No. 13 Lillian C. Blentlinger, LLC William L. Blentlinger, LLC v. Cleanwater Linganore, Inc. et al.

Issues – 1) Did CSA err by holding that a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (“DRRA”), in order to be valid, must include “enhanced public benefits” to the local governing body? 2) Did CSA err by holding that Petitioners’ proffer of a school site did not constitute adequate consideration for the DRRA?
10-10-2017 AG Nos. 26 & 74 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Edward Smith, Jr.
 
10-06-2017 AG No. 3 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Vernon Charles Donnelly
 
10-06-2017 No. 8 Young Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dustin Construction, Inc.

Issues – Contract Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a “flow down” provision in the subcontract between the prime contractor and a subcontractor created a right for the subcontractor to sue the Owner? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the denial of Petitioner’s claim was a Final Decision to trigger the dispute resolution process in the general contract? 3) Did CSA err in not considering Respondent’s alleged breach of the subcontract by preventing the contractor from pursuing its claims through the Prime Contract, the Prevention Doctrine? 4) Did CSA err in relying upon a “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract that Respondent did not raise in its Motion for Summary Judgment and that neither party raised in argument before the trial court? 5) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment prior to any discovery and factual determination regarding the cause of the delays to the project?
10-06-2017 No. 11 Curtis Maurice Lopez v. State of Maryland et al.

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Is a music video/slide show depicting the lives of the victims a permissible form of victim impact evidence, and does its admission violate a criminal defendant’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
10-05-2017 Bar Admissions
 
10-05-2017 No. 19 State of Maryland v. Leonard Lee Simms

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the State have the authority to enter a nolle prosequi on a charge after a conviction? 2) If the State does have the authority to do so, was Respondent’s appeal moot because the State entered a nolle prosequi in the circuit court as to the entire case, without objection?
10-05-2017 No. 12 Shelia Davis et al. v. Frostburg Facility Operations, LLC d/b/a Frostburg Village

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was required to file in the Md. Healthcare Alternative Dispute Resolution Office so that office could make the initial determination of whether Petitioner’s injuries were the result of ordinary negligence or medical negligence? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioners’ complaint was not sufficient on its face to survive the granting of a motion to dismiss on the remaining counts?
10-05-2017 No. 10 Isa Manuel Santiago v. State of Maryland

Issues- Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court properly admitted testimony from the State’s cellular communication expert when the expert admitted his opinion was based on a critical assumption the factual underpinning of which was not established and a report that was destroyed before trial? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of Petitioner’s silence during an investigation by his automobile insurer that was related to and concurrent with the police investigation in this case?
September 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-12-2017 AG No. 38 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Maurice Marnea Moody
 
09-12-2017 Misc. No. 1 Quanta Brownlee et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. et al.

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Would application of Georgia's interpretation of the pollution exclusion contained in the insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to the Salvation Army as excluding coverage for bodily nijuries resulting form the ingestion of lead-based paint violate Maryland public policy?
09-12-2017 No. 6

Martaz Johnson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does CSA’s opinion in Gross v. State, 229 Md.App. 24 (2016), holding that expert testimony is not necessary for the admission of GPS-derived location evidence, conflict with this Court’s opinion in State v. Payne, 440 Md. 680 (2014)? 2) As applied in this case, did the trial court err under Payne in permitting a State’s witness to read a cell phone’s GPS location record to the jury and permitting that witness to interpret those records, when the witness admitted that he did not understand how the technology worked or how it produced the record at issue? 3) Was this question properly preserved for appellate review?
09-11-2017 AG No. 47 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Louisa Content McLaughlin
 
09-11-2017 No. 7 Monarch Academy Baltimore Campus, Inc. et al. v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

Issues – Administrative Law – 1) Is a trial court’s issuance of an indefinite stay of plaintiffs’ action, requiring “administrative review of the parties’ dispute,” an appealable order where it imposes a condition that (a) is beyond the control of the plaintiffs to satisfy and (b) requires that plaintiffs undertake actions that even if satisfied would substantively impair plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural rights? 2) Did the trial court err in determining that the State Board of Education has “primary jurisdiction” over the Charter School Operators’ contract actions and, as a consequence, staying the proceedings “pending administrative review of the parties’ dispute by the State Board of Education?” 3) If Question (2) is answered in the negative, then what process is available to plaintiffs both at the State Board and then in court that would permit their claims to be fully heard and adjudicated, with relief granted, and that would not deprive Petitioners of their substantive rights?
09-07-2017 AG No. 14 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lance Butler, III
 
09-07-2017 No. 5 In re: J. J. and T. S.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Under Criminal Procedure § 11-304, Maryland’s tender years statute, in a CINA case, where a child victim does not testify and the court declines to examine the child in chambers, must the court find that the child is competent before admitting her audiotaped ex parte statement into evidence at an adjudication hearing for the truth of the matter asserted therein? 2) Did the facts in this case establish that the child victim was competent, where the child did not testify in court and the court did not examine the child because it found that the audio recording of the child’s statement made an examination of the child unnecessary, although the audio recording contained no indication that the child was aware of the difference between the truth and a lie, and the child previously had fabricated an allegation of sexual abuse? 3) Did J.J.’s hearsay statement have particularized guarantees of trustworthiness to be allowed into evidence?
09-07-2017 No. 4 John W. Green, III v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Md. Rule 4-263(d)(7)(B), which requires the State to disclose “[a]ll relevant material or information regarding…pretrial identification of the defendant by a State’s witness,” require the State to disclose all relevant material or information regarding pretrial identification of a co-defendant by a State’s witness? 2) Where Petitioner and co-defendant were both present at the scene of the crime and the eyewitness identification of the co-defendant as the non-shooter implicated Petitioner as the person who shot and killed the victim, did CSA err in holding that information regarding the identification of co-defendant did not fall within the scope of “relevant material or information regarding…pretrial identification of the defendant by a State’s witness,” under Rule 4-263(d)(7)(B)?
09-06-2017 Bar Admissions  
09-06-2017 AG No. 15 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Benjamin Jeremy Woolery
 
09-06-2017 No. 3 University of Maryland Medical System Corporation et al. v. Brandon Kerrigan, a minor et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA substitute its judgment and fail to defer to the wide discretion owed to the trial court’s reasoning in support of transfer? 2) Did CSA fail to review this case on its individual merits by placing too much reliance upon Scott v. Hawit, 211 Md.App. 620 (2013), a decision with different facts? 3) Did CSA err by holding that the residence of foreign plaintiffs should not factor into the convenience of the parties analysis under Md. Rule 2-327(c)?
09-06-2017 No. 1 Jamal Sizer v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the police make an illegal stop of a person, discover a valid, pre-existing arrest warrant, and seize evidence from the person during a search incident to arrest, must the admissibility of that evidence be determined based on an application of the “attenuation factors,” as held in Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), Cox v. State, 397 Md. 200 (2007), and Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261 (2006), or may a court, as CSA did in this case, reject the attenuation doctrine and find that such evidence will always be admissible because the arrest warrant constitutes an “independent source”? 2) Did the hearing judge correctly rule that the discovery of a valid pre-existing arrest warrant did not attenuate the connection between the illegal stop of Petitioner and the evidence seized from him shortly thereafter? 3) Where a person is under no obligation to interact with the police, does flight to avoid that interaction, by itself, justify a Terry stop; and if so, does it still justify the stop where there is evidence that flight was provoked by the threatening or startling actions of the police officers? 4) Did the hearing judge correctly rule that police violated Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights where the only observation officers made regarding Petitioner before tackling him was that he immediately ran upon noticing the six bicycle-riding police officers riding towards him?
09-06-2017 No. 2

In re: C. E.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err in holding that the waiver of reasonable efforts pursuant to Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3-812 was constitutional and appropriate? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the ruling was not a final order and not appealable where the issue was not raised in any brief or argument?