SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2025
Thursday, September 4, 2025:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 21 (2024 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David B. Mintz
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica M. Hall
Attorney for Respondent: David B. Mintz
No. 1 Philip Clarke v. Chinyere Gibson
Issues – Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err in finding Petitioner’s lack of credibility was sufficient evidence for finding physical abuse when there was no other evidence of a physical assault? 2) Did the trial court err and violate Petitioner’s due process rights when the Petition for Protection failed to plead any form of physical assault or child abuse? 3) Did the trial court err when it scheduled the hearing in excess of seven days in the future without stating good cause on the record?
Attorney for Petitioner: Timothy J. Mummert
Attorney for amicus curiae: Christopher J. Mincher
Friday, September 5, 2025:
No. 4 In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account?
Attorneys for Petitioner: John J. Connolly and Gregg L. Bernstein
Attorney for Respondent: Joshua M. Segal
No. 5 In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account?
Attorney for Petitioner: Francis J. Collins
Attorney for Respondent: Joshua M. Segal
No. 6 In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court to conduct an individualized analysis when the undisputed record establishes as a matter of law that there is no particularized need to disclose Petitioners’ identities?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ryan W. Steyer
Attorneys for Respondent: Joshua M. Segal and Julia Doyle
Monday, September 8, 2025:
No. 2 Jabari Morses Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.
Issues – Contracts – 1) Where a separate document is never made available to, shown to, or signed by a contracting party, but that separate document is incorporated by reference into the underlying contract, is a consumer bound by the terms of that separate document despite having no knowledge of or access to the terms in that separate document? 2) When a contract contains two distinct integration clauses – one defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the seller and the other defining the rights and obligations between the buyer and the assignee – does the assignee obtain rights under the terms of the buyer/seller integration clause?
Attorney for Petitioner: Cory L. Zajdel
Attorney for Respondent: Robert J. Brener
No. 8 Diandre Goodrich v. State of Maryland
Issue – Constitutional Law – Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s request for self-representation in violation of his constitutional rights and Maryland Rule 4-215?
Attorney for Petitioner: Juan Reyes
Attorney for Respondent: Laura G. Casciano
No. 9 Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment?
Attorney for Petitioner: Mark W. Pennak
Attorney for Respondent: Erin J. Ashbarry
Tuesday, September 9, 2025:
Misc No. 89 In the Matter of the Application of Andrew Toscano for Admission Without Examination to the Bar of Maryland
Arguing for Applicant: Andrew Toscano
Misc No. 1 Express Scripts, Inc., et al. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
1) Under Maryland’s common law, can the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance constitute an actionable public nuisance? 2) If so, what are the elements of such a public nuisance claim, and what types of potential relief can a local government plaintiff seek when asserting such a claim?
Attorneys for Appellant: Conor B. O'Croinin and Christopher G. Michel
Attorneys for Appellee: Elizabeth Smith and Linda Singer
No. 10 George Bowens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Issue – Insurance Law – Does the “debt or damages claimed” against an underinsured motorist carrier include amounts paid by the tortfeasor’s liability carrier?
Attorney for Petitioner: Franklin J. Muher
Attorney for Respondent: Laura Basem Jacobs
After September 9, 2025, the Court will recess until October 1, 2025.
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 8:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK