SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2025
Monday, November 3, 2025:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 32 (2024 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Judith Marie Hamilton
Attorney for Petitioner: Cortenous Herbert, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Judith M. Hamilton
Misc. No. 2 Robin B. Quinn, Personal Representative for Jo Ann Allen v. General Electric Company
Justice Raker will sit in place of Justice Gould.
Certified Question of Law from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Under Maryland law, in a strict liability design defect claim, must a plaintiff who alleges that she was injured as a bystander (in contrast to a "user" or "consumer" as defined in Valk Manufacturing Company v. Rangaswamy, 537 A.2d 622, 629 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 562 A.2d 1246 (Md. 1989)) prove an additional element-the element of duty-beyond the four "essential elements of an action in strict liability as set forth in [the Restatement (Second) of Torts] § 402A," Phipps v. General Motors Co., 363 A.2d 955, 958 (Md. 1976), to recover, and if so, what factors are used to determine whether a duty is owed?
Attorneys for Appellant: Daniel A. Brown and Matthew E. Kiely
Attorneys for Appellee: Michael L. Haslup and Donald S. Merringer
Tuesday, November 4, 2025:
No. 24 Baltimore KV Properties LLC v. Newsteps' Choice North Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.
Issue – Real Property – May a judgment creditor, after levy, execution and sheriff’s sale of the judgment debtor’s real property to a third-party purchaser, divest the sheriff’s sale purchaser of the purchaser’s interest in the property by accepting payment of the judgment in full from the judgment debtor and seek to have the sheriff’s sale canceled and the judgment entered as satisfied?
Attorney for Petitioner: Byron L. Huffman
Attorney for Respondent: Justin Cameron
No. 27 State of Maryland, et al. v. Michael Young
Issues – State Government – 1) Did ACM err in deciding that the attack on Respondent by fellow inmates comprised two separate “incidents” or “occurrences” within the meaning of the Maryland Tort Claims Act, thus exposing the State to liability of $800,000 rather than $400,000? 2) Did ACM err in affirming the judgments against individual State personnel as “enforceable” against the State, rather than vacating and directing entry of judgment against the State? 3) Did ACM err in holding that Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450 (2011), applies to the State, where that case approved of pattern-or-practice liability only for local governments?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ryan R. Dietrich
Attorney for Respondent: Cary J. Hansel
After November 4, 2025, the Court will recess until December 4, 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