Maryland Courts

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).

Click on the column title to sort by that column.

Case No. Year Petitioner Respondent Cert. Granted Oral Arguments Opinion Filed Issues
050
2014 State Department of Assessments & Taxation Andrecs 2014-07-18 2015-02-09
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-21
[Opinion]

Taxation – Did the MD Tax Court correctly calculate the “taxable assessment” for homestead tax credit purposes under § 9-105 of the Tax-Property Article where the statute requires the taxable assessment to include the value of substantially completed improvements that a homeowner makes to his dwelling?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 0396, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

092
2014 Fuller Republican Cent. Comm. 2015-02-20 2015-03-02
[Oral Arguments]

2015-08-21
[Opinion]

2015-03-02
[PC Order]

State Government – 1) Does Article 3, Section 13 of the Constitution of Maryland (“Section 13”) prohibit a party central committee from submitting more than one name to the Governor to fill a single vacancy in the General Assembly? 2) Is a temporary restraining order appropriate relief to prevent a party central committee from violating Section 13?

Court of Special Appeals, No.____, Sept. Term, 2014, Pending

064
2014 Prince George's Co. Zimmer Development Co. 2014-09-19 2015-03-06
[Oral Agruments]
2015-08-20
[Opinion]

Zoning and Planning – 1) Did CSA err in its statutory construction of the “Regional District Act” (“RDA”) by holding that the District Council is vested with appellate rather than original jurisdiction over Planning Board preliminary determinations with respect to regional and legislative zoning matters? 2) Did CSA err by applying County Council of Prince George’s County v. Curtis Regency, 121 Md. App. 123, even though it involved a preliminary planning matter rather than a legislative, regional zoning matter which conflicts with this Court’s holding in County Council of Prince George’s County v. Dutcher, 365 Md. 399? 3) Whether the County Council’s 1996 enactment of the County Code (“PGCC”) § 27-132(f), providing that the District Council “shall exercise original jurisdiction” in its “review [of] a decision made by … the Planning Board,” is consistent with the provisions of the RDA? 4) Whether CSA’s holding improperly transfers the legislative, regional zoning authority expressly provided to the District Council by the RDA to the Planning Board, a subordinate agency? 5) Whether CSA’s holding violates the separation of powers doctrine because the judiciary has divested the legislative body of its legislative authority over regional zoning, including the applications related to zoning map amendments sought here, specifically designated by State law? 6) Whether CSA nullified the District Council’s statutory right to “remand” a case to the Planning Board for further information, and the District Council’s obligation to issue a “final” decision prior to judicial review, by holding that the District Council is limited after remand to only those issues that were remanded? 7) Assuming, arguendo, that CSA correctly held that the District Council’s standard of review of the Planning Board’s actions is the “arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal” standard, then whether CSA erred by reinstating the Planning Board’s recommendations as to Zimmer’s applications, instead of remanding for the District Council to apply the correct standard of review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 259, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

055
2014 Bontempo Lare 2014-08-27 2015-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-06
[Opinion]

Corporations and Associations – 1) Does Maryland adhere to the equitable reasonable-expectations employment doctrine or does it subordinate the doctrine to the at-will employment doctrine absent a written agreement guaranteeing continued employment? 2) Did the trial court apply incorrect legal standards in making its rulings on “fraudulent” conduct under §3-413 of the Corporations and Associations Art., petitioner’s constructive-fraud claim, and petitioner’s punitive-damages claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 678, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

070
2014 Dykes State 2014-10-21 2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-27
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) When it finds meritorious grounds for granting a motion to discharge counsel, what is the extent of the trial court’s authority to appoint counsel? 2) After finding meritorious reasons for discharge and after discharging both Petitioner’s public defender specifically and the Office of the Public Defender generally, did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s repeated pretrial requests for court-appointed counsel on the grounds that he was now “on his own” and that it did not have the authority to appoint counsel?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 484, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

022 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Shephard   2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-06
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
082
2014 Scarfield Muntjan 2014-11-19 2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]

2015-07-24
[Opinion]

Civil Procedure – Does the filing of an amended complaint which presents a new claim and jury demand revive a previously waived right to a jury trial where the new claim is dismissed for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1065, September Term, 2012, Unreported

085
2014 Varriale State 2014-12-19 2015-05-07
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-11
[Opinon]

Criminal Law – 1) Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to law enforcement’s retention and use, for general investigatory purposes, of Petitioner’s DNA profile collected for a limited purpose? 2) If applicable, whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use Petitioner’s DNA profile for a purpose that exceeded the limited terms of consent police relied on to collect Petitioner’s DNA samples? 3) Did Petitioner consent to the collection and subsequent use of his DNA profile?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1261, September Term, 2013 [Opinion]

090
2014 State Waine 2014-12-19 2015-05-12
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-28
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court retain the discretion, granted by Criminal Procedure Article § 7-104, to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by reopening Respondent’s prior post conviction proceeding to litigate an unwaived challenge to “advisory” jury instructions? 2) Should a circuit court consider a challenge to instructions under Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012), on a case by case basis to determine whether there is “a reasonable likelihood” that the jurors understood the court’s 1977 instructions as allowing them to convict Respondent on proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt? 3) Where the Unger majority ignored the underpinnings of the doctrine of stare decisis, and, in any event, was “plainly wrong” when it held that Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167 (1980) and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84 (1981) had set forth a new interpretation of Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights over thirty years earlier and when it held that Stevenson and Montgomery were to be applied retroactively, should Unger be overruled?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1792, September Term, 2012, Unreported

074
2014 State Westray 2014-10-21 2015-06-03
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-27
[Opinon]

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in determining that, where Respondent was represented by counsel and requested discharge of counsel, the trial court was required to determine and announce on the record that he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to counsel? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Respondent’s request for the appointment of pro bono counsel on the grounds that it lacked the power to appoint pro bono counsel for Respondent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1836, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

088
2014 Griffin Lindsey 2014-12-19 2015-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-04
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Do crime victims lack statutory authority to appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Code (2008, 2011 Supp.), Criminal Procedure Article § 11-103(e), thus depriving CSA of jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution? 2) Did the trial court properly deny Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution from Petitioner, when the court had already accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner had already performed his part of the plea agreement, and the court had already sentenced Petitioner? 3) Under the principles of Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 604 (2010), does a binding plea agreement prohibit restitution when it makes no mention of restitution and purports to be the “full and complete agreement of the parties”? 4) Does the trial court lack authority to grant a victim’s request for restitution if the victim does not request restitution until after the court has already accepted a plea agreement that does not include it? 5) When a court has already imposed a sentence that does not include restitution, would granting a victim’s request for restitution illegally increase the sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 495, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

089
2014 Comm. Coll. of Baltimore Co. Patient First Corp. 2014-12-19 2015-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-18
[Opinion]

Torts – 1) Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding indemnification damages to Respondent related to its defense and settlement of claims against it for its own negligence, even though Petitioner did not expressly and unequivocally agree to indemnify Respondent for its own negligence? 2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Respondent’s general counsel to testify to the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees charged by outside counsel and clearly erred in awarding Respondent attorneys’ fees based on that testimony?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 568, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

001
2015 Police Civilian Empl. Ass'n. Prince George's Co. Police 2015-01-23 2015-09-02  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1198, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

002
2015 Sibug State 2015-01-23 2015-09-02  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2211, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

004
2015 Tower Oaks Blvd. Procida 2015-01-23 2015-09-02  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2459, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

007 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Storch   2015-09-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
006
2015 Roy Dackman 2015-01-23 2015-09-03  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 558, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

028 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Young   2015-09-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
005
2015 May Air & Liquid Systems 2015-01-23 2015-09-03  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2670, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

003
2015 Twigg State 2015-01-23 2015-09-03  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1878, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

074 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Stanalonis   2015-09-09   Attorney disciplinary matter
078
2014 Simms State   2015-09-09   DNA appeal
079
2014 McClanahan Dept. of Social Services 2014-11-19 2015-09-09  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 737, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

020 Misc.
2014 Montgomery Co. Phillips   2015-09-10  

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)?

008
2015 Lisy Corp. McCormick & Co. 2015-01-23 2015-09-10  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1231, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

007
2015 Allstate Lien & Recovery Stansbury 2015-01-23 2015-09-10  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1025, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

058 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Chanthunya   2015-09-28   Attorney disciplinary matter.

015
 
2015 Clough Mayor & Council of Hurlock 2015-03-27 2015-09-28  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1917, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

020
2015 Kiriakos Phillips 2015-03-27 2015-09-28  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 834, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

011
2015 Wagner State 2015-02-20 2015-09-28  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2299, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

040 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Rand   2015-09-29   Attorney disciplinary matter.

035 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Mitchell   2015-09-29   Attorney disciplinary matter

012
2015 Seward State 2015-02-20 2015-09-29  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2294, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

017
2015 Beall Holloway-Johnson 2015-03-27 2015-09-29  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2338, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

001 Misc.
2015 Application of Davis     2015-10-05   In the Matter of the Application of Philip Davis for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

021
2015 Meyer State 2015-03-27 2015-10-05  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1086, Sept. Term, 2014, Pending

022
2015 State Rivera 2015-03-27 2015-10-05  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2695, Sept. Term, 2013, Pending

010
2015 State Roshchin 2015-02-20 2015-10-05  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 547, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

013
2015 Brownstones at Park Potomac JP Morgan Chase 2015-02-20 2015-10-05  

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.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, No. 8979D

016
2015 Jones State 2015-03-27 2015-10-06  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2425, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

018
2015 Bd. of Education Howard Co. Educ. Ass'n 2015-03-27 2015-10-06  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 9, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

009
2015 Williams State 2015-02-20 2015-10-06  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 651, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

066 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Good   2015-11-05   Attorney disciplinary mater

042
2015 Dept. of Environment Anacostia Riverkeeper 2015-07-27 2015-11-05  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2199, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

043
2015 Blue Water Baltimore Dept. of Environment 2015-07-27 2015-11-05  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1851, Sept. Term, 2014, Pending

044
2015 Blue Water Baltimore Dept. of Environment 2015-07-27 2015-11-05  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 937, Sept. Term, 2015, Pending

067 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Shapiro   2015-11-06   Attorney disciplinary matter

027
2015 Perry Asphalt & Concrete 2015-04-17 2015-11-06  

Civil Procedure – Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by admitting the evidence of insurance?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2059, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

028
2015 Ray-Simmons & McGouldrick State 2015-04-17 2015-11-06  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 1552 & 1553, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

029
2015 Lockett Blue Ocean Bristol 2015-04-17 2015-11-06  

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?

Circuit Court for Baltimore City, No. 27-C-14-006572

023
2015 Litz Dept. of Environment 2015-04-17 2015-11-09  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 397, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

086
2014 State Gutierrez & Perez-Larazo 2014-12-19 2015-11-09  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 457 & 786, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

024
2015 In Re: Adoption/G'ship of Dustin R.   2015-04-17 2015-11-09  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2709, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

025
2015 Baltimore Co. FOP Lodge No. 4 2015-04-17 2015-11-09  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1904, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

030
2015 Yonga State 2015-04-17 2015-11-10  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2441, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

014
2015 Pushia State   2015-11-10   DNA Appeal

026
2015 Toms Calvary Assembly of God 2015-04-17 2015-11-10  

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?

Circuit Court for Frederick County, No. 10-C-14-002057

031
2015 Patel Safeco Insurance Co. 2015-04-17 2015-11-10  

Insurance – For a waiver of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to be valid, does the cost of the coverage being waived and the cost of the coverage being purchased have to be included in the waiver in order for the waiver to comply with the term “cost” in § 19-510 of the Insurance Article?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1332, Sept. Term, 2014, Pending

046
2014 Wicomico Co. Dept. of Social Serv's B.A. 2014-07-18

2015-12-03
Reargument

2015-06-03
[Oral Arguments]

2015-08-27
[Order for Supplemental Briefing and Reargument]

Family Law – Where an instructor used class time to groom a student and lure her into a secret intimate relationship, should he be exempted from a finding of “indicated child sexual abuse” on the basis that his blatantly sexual behavior with the student occurred outside of class?

Supplemental briefing and reargument ordered on the following additional issues: 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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 238, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported