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
005
2015 May Air & Liquid Systems 2015-01-23 2015-09-03
[Oral Arguments]
2015-12-18
[Opinion]

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
[Oral Arguments]
 

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]

079
2014 McClanahan Dept. of Social Services 2014-11-19 2015-09-09
[Oral Arguments]
2015-12-22
[Opinion]

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]

058 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Chanthunya   2015-09-28
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.

015
 
2015 Clough Mayor & Council of Hurlock 2015-03-27 2015-09-28 [Oral Arguments] 2015-12-16
[Opinion]

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

012
2015 Seward State 2015-02-20 2015-09-29
[Oral Arguments]
2015-01-27
[Opinion]

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
[Oral Arguments]
2016-01-21
[Opinion]

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]

010
2015 State Roshchin 2015-02-20 2015-10-05
[Oral Arguments]
2016-01-26
[Opinion]

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]

042
2015 Dept. of Environment Anacostia Riverkeeper 2015-07-27 2015-11-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

027
2015 Perry Asphalt & Concrete 2015-04-17 2015-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
2016-01-22
[Opinion]

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-Lazaro 2014-12-19 2015-11-09
[Oral Arguments]
2016-01-28
[Opinion]

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

025
2015 Baltimore Co. FOP Lodge No. 4 2015-04-17 2015-11-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
2016-01-27
[Opinion]

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]

026
2015 Toms Calvary Assembly of God 2015-04-17 2015-11-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

086 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Williams   2015-12-03
[Oral Arguments]
2015-12-03
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
033
2015 State Bircher 2015-05-22 2015-12-03
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: this video file is large (1.80 GB) and may take a few minutes to download.
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in finding abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to provide a supplemental instruction on the doctrine of transferred intent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2451, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinon]

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

2015-12-03
Reargument
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: this video file is large (1.77 GB) and may take a few minutes to download.

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

036
2015 Montgomery Co. Bhatt 2015-06-17 2015-12-03
[Oral Arguments]
2016-01-22
[Opinion]

Transportation Law – 1) Did the lower court err in holding that the 1890 deed from George Dunlop to the Metropolitan Southern Railroad Company did not convey a right of way? 2) Did the County prove that the Respondent’s fence and shed encroached upon the right of way that was originally purchased by the Metropolitan Southern Railroad Company and later conveyed to the county for the Georgetown Branch/Capital Crescent Trail? 3) Is a railroad right of way susceptible to a private claim for adverse possession via an adjacent landowner’s encroachment when the right of way was actively used for a railway line and when there was no evidence of abandonment by the railroad? 4) Did the lower court err in holding that the Respondent acquired title to a former railroad right of way by adverse possession?

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, No. 8929D

032
2015 Emerald Hills HOA Peters 2015-05-22 2015-12-04
[Oral Arguments]
2016-01-27
[Opinion]

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

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1364, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinon]

034
2015 Allmond Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene 2015-05-22 2015-12-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Health – Is Md. Code Ann., Health-General § 10-708, as amended, unconstitutional under the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2624, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

035
2015 Garrity State Board of Plumbing 2015-06-17 2015-12-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Commercial Law – 1) Did the Md. State Bd. of Plumbing correctly invoke the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel and use it to preclusive effect against Petitioner? 2) Were Petitioner’s double jeopardy protections violated when the State Bd. of Plumbing and the Consumer Protection Division both fined him for the same conduct?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2171, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

038
2015 Motor Vehicle Admin. Gonce 2015-06-17 2015-12-07
[Oral Arguments]
2015-01-22
[Opinion]

Transportation Law – Was a suspect who agreed to take a blood alcohol test, which produced a test result of 0.00, subject to suspension under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1, when he thereafter refused to submit to a blood test for intoxicants?

Circuit Court for Baltimore County, No. 03-C-14-011601

039
2015 Injured Workers Ins. Fund Subsequent Injury Fund 2015-06-17 2015-12-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Workers’ Compensation – Should the Subsequent Injury Fund Assessment under Labor & Employment (“L&E”) § 9-806 be calculated based on the amount of the award prior to or after the offset granted under L&E § 9-610?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 358, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

040
2015 Baltimore Co. Subsequent Injury Fund 2015-06-14 2015-12-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Workers’ Compensation – Whether the County, when entitled to a statutory offset against an award issued by the Workers’ Compensation Commission, is obligated to pay the Subsequent Injury Fund Assessment based on the amount of the award before or after the offset is calculated?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1258, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

079 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Landeo   2016-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
041
2015 Lane Sup'v of Assessments 2015-07-27 2016-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Taxation – 1) Whether evidence of sales consummated subsequent to the Date of Finality is admissible in property tax assessment cases? 2) Does the record lack substantial evidence to support the Tax Court’s determination of assessed value where the Tax Court relied upon sales of units that differ in location, layout and size?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1388, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

045
2015 Fraternal Order Of Police Montgomery Co. 2015-08-21 2016-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Election Law – 1) May a Home Rule Charter County engage in electioneering and a political campaign using public funds, public employees, and other governmental resources to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law? 2) Do the guarantee of Free Elections in Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights, the State comprehensive campaign finance statue, and State and county laws and regulations prohibiting on-the-job political activities by public employees bar a Home Rule Charter County and/or its public officials from using the municipal corporation, including its public funds, employees, and other governmental resources to engage in electioneering and a political campaign to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law? 3) Are local public officials subject to the campaign finance organization and activity (Subtitle 2) and reporting (Subtitle 3) requirements of Title 13, Md. Code Ann., Election Law (1957, 2010 Repl. Vol.)(“EL”) when they authorize and engage in electioneering and a political campaign using public funds, public employees, and other governmental resources, including the name of the County, to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law? 4) Where local public officials authorize and engage in the expenditure of public funds, use of public employees, and other governmental resources to engage in unlawful and ultra vires electioneering and a political campaign in the name of the local government, to advocate how voters should vote on a referendum on a local law, is “qualified immunity” a defense against causes of action for civil misconduct in office, a taxpayers action, and violation of the Declaration of Rights? 5) Are plaintiffs who, at their own expense, successfully challenge the unlawful and ultra vires actions of a local government and its public officials in authorizing and/or engaging in impermissible electioneering and political campaign entitled to an award of counsel fees? 6) Did Petitioners prove that the County’s authority to engage in government speech harmed them in a manner different than the public? 7) Did Petitioners failure to seek prompt judicial review bar their suit? 8) Did Petitioners meet the standards to bring suit as set out in EL § 12-202?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 175, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

049
2015 Grimm State 2015-08-21 2016-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) May a witness’s testimony that he does not remember whether an act occurred constitute sufficient corroboration of an extra-judicial confession by the defendant that the act in fact occurred? 2) Can a criminal defendant’s uncorroborated confession constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 183, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported).

046
2015 Davis Wicomico Co. Bureau 2015-08-21 2016-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Family Law – 1) Is blood or genetic testing mandated when demanded by a putative father who, from the beginning of the legal process, presents evidence of fraudulent affidavits of parentage? 2) Does extrinsic evidence of fraud exist where the state’s attorney actively participates in the deception and fraud without disclosing it to the putative father or to the lower court during two trials?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2358, Sept. Term, 2013 [Reported]

047
2015 Reliable Contracting Damage Prevention Authority 2015-08-21 2016-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Public Utilities – 1) Does Public Utilities (PU) § 12-135 violate Art. IV of the Md. Constitution and/or Art. 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights in vesting plenary judicial power in the Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority to issue citations and adjudicate all cases involving violations of the Miss Utility Statute? 2) Does PU § 12-135 violate Art. IV of the Md. Constitution and/or Art. 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights in vesting the Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority in fixing the amount of penalty, within broad limits, up to $2,000.00 for a first offense and up to $4,000.00 for a subsequent offense, without any legislative safeguards or standards? 3) Is the Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority a unit of the Executive Branch?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 752, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

050
2015 Hall State 2015-08-21 2016-01-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) As an issue of first impression, is Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-602.1, the criminal neglect of a minor statute, unconstitutional because it is vague? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for neglect of a minor?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2473, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported).

048
2015 Glenn DHMH 2015-08-21 2016-01-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

State Government – 1) Did CSA err in granting deference to the Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Department”)’s legal conclusion that it was authorized, under § 4-358 of the Public Information Act (“PIA”) (Md. Code Gen. Prov. § 4-101 et seq.), to redact the records in question? 2) Did CSA err in substituting for the PIA’s requirement of proof of “substantial injury to the public interest” the far less demanding standard of mere “greater risk” that disclosure of public information might have a “chilling effect” on owners of regulated businesses?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 489, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported).

053
2015 O'Brien & Gere Engrs. City of Salisbury 2015-08-21 2016-01-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1734, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

052
2015 State Jones 2015-08-21 2016-01-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, where the modality of the commission of a first degree assault is use of a firearm, is first degree assault an inherently dangerous felony capable of supporting a conviction for second degree felony murder or a non-inherently dangerous felony that would support a conviction for second degree felony murder only if committed in an inherently dangerous manner? 2) As a matter of first impression, where the modality of the commission of a first degree assault is the intent to cause or attempt to cause serious physical injury, is first degree assault a lesser included offense of second degree intent-to-inflict-grievous-bodily-harm murder?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2475, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

030 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Peters-Hamlin   2016-01-12
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
051
2015 Seal State 2015-08-21 2016-01-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the taped telephone call between Petitioner and Mr. W. was admissible? 2) Does Md.’s wiretapping statute authorize a Md. law enforcement office to provide a resident of another state with an electronic wiretapping device to be used by that individual, two weeks later, to record telephone conversations with a resident of a third state and use those recordings in a criminal proceeding in Maryland? 3) When a Md. law enforcement officer provides a resident of another state with an electronic wiretapping device to be used at that person’s pleasure, does use of the device constitute “acting . . . under the supervision of a . . . law enforcement officer” pursuant to the Md. Wiretap Statute?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1430, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported).

054
2015 Mensah MCT Federal Credit Union 2015-08-21 2016-01-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Maryland Law allow a judgment creditor to garnish wages earned by a judgment-debtor employee exclusively for work performed in Texas pursuant to a writ of garnishment issued by a Maryland court? 2) Does Maryland law allow a judgment creditor to garnish wages earned by a judgment-debtor employee exclusively for work performed in Texas pursuant to a writ of garnishment issued by a Maryland court and served on an employer in New Jersey?

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Nos. 8976-D & 9131D.

073 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Framm   2016-02-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
020
2015 Kiriakos Phillips 2015-03-27 2016-02-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

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)

055
2015 Dankos Stapf 2015-09-03 2016-02-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Are minors intended protectees of CL § 10-117(b), which prohibits adult property owners from allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on their premises? 2) Does MD recognize a duty of care arising from the special relationship between a parent hosting an underage drinking party on her property and a minor attendee who the parent permitted to attend and consume excessive amounts of alcohol?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2533, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]
060
2015 Rowhouses, Inc. Smith 2015-10-16 2016-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – Was the trial court legally correct in granting summary judgment in favor of Petitioner where Respondent failed to prove the existence of lead at 1622 E. Oliver Street?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 993, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

061
2015 Wilson Wilson 2015-10-16 2016-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
2016-02-09
[PC Order]

Family Law – 1) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by finding that Petitioner had breached the parties’ contract when in fact the contract had been void ab initio? 2) Is a service member required to obtain the express agreement of his or her ex-spouse to waive disability benefits, which the ex-spouse would not be entitled to under Federal Law, in order to resolve the issue of the division of the military pension and not be obligated to pay disability benefits directly to the ex-spouse? 3) Did the trial court and CSA err in contravening two prior court orders by requiring Petitioner to pay one-half of his gross disability benefits to Respondent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 497, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

056
2015 Guy Named Moe Chipotle 2015-09-18 2016-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Corporations and Associations – Did CSA err when it determined that a foreign limited liability, that had previously and correctly registered to do business in MD, but whose registration lapsed or was forfeit, is absolutely and incurably barred from maintaining a lawsuit in the State of Maryland that is filed during such lapse?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2270, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

013 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Kent   2016-02-08
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
057
2015 State Graves 2015-09-18 2016-02-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did the trial court comply with the mandates of Rule 4-215(e), where the court informed Respondent that if he had a meritorious reason for discharging counsel his case would be continued, and directly asked Respondent whether he wanted to discharge counsel, to which Respondent answered that he would “keep [defense counsel] on”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2207, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

062
2015 Jackson Sollie 2015-10-16 2016-02-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Family Law – Should Md. follow the majority of states and require a trial judge to consider whether Social Security benefits should be offset against the marital portion of a Civil Service Retirement System pension upon dividing assets as a result of divorce?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 996, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

080 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance White   2016-02-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
058
2015 Sharp State 2015-10-16 2016-02-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court impermissibly consider Petitioner’s refusal to plead guilty and his exercise of his constitutional right to a trial in fashioning his sentence? 2) Did CSA err in determining that defense counsel did not preserve this issue for appellate review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1081, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

059
2015 Assateague Coastal Trust Schwalbach 2015-10-16 2016-02-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Environmental Law – 1) Did CSA veto the Legislature’s amendments to the Critical Areas Law and restore the formulation of “unwarranted hardship” as articulated in Belvoir Farms v. North, 355 Md. 259 (1999)? 2) Did CSA improperly expand the common law doctrine of riparian rights? 3) Did CSA limit the effectiveness of the Critical Areas Law by negating the presumption of non-compliance? 4) Did CSA ignore the Legislature’s requirement that the appellant prove the variance shall not adversely affect water quality or fish, wildlife or plant habitat?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 939, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

007 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Moore   2016-03-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
020 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Gracey   2016-03-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
067
2015 Brutus 630 Town of Bel Air 2015-11-20 2016-03-03  

Local Government – 1) Does Md. Code Ann. Art. 24 §§ 9-710 and 9-712 restrict a citizen’s right to claim a refund of erroneously paid or collected money only to fees or charges that are “in the nature of taxes” where the plain language of the statute permits the citizen to apply for a refund, and to appeal the denial of a claim for a refund, of a “tax, fee, charge…”? 2) Does the Tax Court have jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for refund of systems connection charges? 3) Is a systems connection charge a “tax”, a “fee” or a “charge”, or a fee or a charge “in the nature of a tax” so that the Tax Court has jurisdiction over an appeal by the claimant from a denial of its refund claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2356, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

090 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Hunt   2016-03-04   Attorney disciplinary matter
064
2015 Brown State 2015-11-20 2016-03-04  

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

Court of Special Appeals, No. 212, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

065
2015 Grant State 2015-11-20 2016-03-04  

Criminal Law – 1) Where the State has the burden to prove that a warrantless search was lawful, the resolution of the suppression motion turns on a specific fact, and the motions court finds that the evidence to this fact is “not clear,” does the motions court err in denying the motion to suppress? 2) Does MD recognize the “supplemental rule of interpretation” by which an appellate court fills in fact-finding gaps and resolves fact-finding ambiguities and does this rule allow a reviewing court to fill in a fact that is inconsistent with a fact found by the motions court where the reviewing court does not find the fact clearly erroneous? 3) Where a motions court’s factual finding with its subsequent legal conclusion, may an appellate court affirm the denial of the suppression motion on the basis of an inference that is inconsistent with the motions court’s factual finding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2742, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

016 Misc.
2015 Merchant State   2016-03-07  

Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals.

Questions - 1) Did the circuit court err in determining that the statutory scheme, set forth in Crim.Proc. §§ 3-114, et seq., for the granting and/or revocation of the conditional release of a committed person violates the separation of powers provision found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and is thus void as unconstitutional? 2) Did the circuit court err in revoking Merchant's conditional release and ordering his continued commitment for institutional inpatient care and treatment after the ALJ had found that Merchant was eligible for conditional release and had recommended the same?

081
2015 Stoddard DHMH 2015-12-18 2016-03-07  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the MD Code Criminal Procedure Art. § 3-115 et. seq., interpreted by CSA in Byers v. State, 184 Md.App. 499 (2009), violate the MD Declaration of Rights Art. 8 and did the trial court err as a matter of law when it conducted a de novo hearing in violation of the statute? 2) Did the trial court err in refusing to consider the ALJ’s report and recommendations and refusing to grant Petitioner’s conditional release?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 930, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

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

2016-03-08
Reargument

2015-09-02
[Oral Arguments]

2015-11-24
[Order for Supplemental Briefing and Reargument]

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?

Supplemental briefing and reargument ordered on the following additional issues: 1) Did the negotiators of the collective bargaining agreement between Prince George's County and the Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association have the authority to enter into a contractual provision that extends a Weingarten right to criminal investigations? 2) As a matter of contract interpretation, does Article 8.C of the collective bargaining agreement apply to criminal investigations?

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

066
2015 Dinapoli Bd. of Appeals 2015-11-20 2016-03-08  

Local Government – 1) What is the proper standard of review for county Boards of Appeals to apply when ruling on motions to dismiss? 2) Does the heightened aggrievement standard applied by the Queen Anne’s County Board of Appeals and the reviewing courts, pursuant to Queen Anne’s Co. Code § 18:1-119.A(1)(a) conflict with Md. Code Ann., Local Gov’t § 10-305(a)(4), which allows for petition to a county board of appeals by “any interested person”? 3) Is it error to defer to an administrative agency’s ruling on a question of law where the agency has admitted on the record that it is confused as to the applicable legal standard, has refused to follow the advice of agency counsel, and has expressed its desire for clarification and further guidance from the reviewing courts? 4) Did CSA improperly substitute its own judgment for that of the Board of Appeals in holding that Petitioners had not alleged the necessary elements for taxpayer standing where the Board’s Findings and Decision remained silent on this issue?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1186, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

068
2015 Peninsula Regional Med. Ctr. Adkins 2015-11-20 2016-03-08  

Labor and Employment – 1) Under MD’s Fair Employment Practices Act, is an employee required to show that she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” before an employer has a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation? 2) May a plaintiff prevail on a disability discrimination or failure to accommodate claim where that employee failed to engage in the interactive process with the employer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 712, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

069
2015 Spangler McQuitty 2015-11-20 2016-03-31   Torts – 1) Whether Maryland follows the majority of jurisdictions which hold that a prior personal injury judgment obtained by the decedent completely precludes any subsequent wrongful death action based on the same negligent conduct? 2) Whether the decedent’s release, wherein he covenanted that “wrongful death beneficiaries… will not maintain any action for wrongful death,” precluded Respondents from filing a wrongful death action against Petitioners?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2375, Sept. Term, 2012 (Unreported)
074
2015 State Hart 2015-12-18 2016-03-31   Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court violated MD Rule 4-231 by discussing a jury note with the foreperson in Respondent’s absence where defense counsel waived Respondent’s presence in order to view the note, and also suggested that the trial court question the foreperson about the note in Respondent’s absence? 2) Where a mistrial as to one count was manifestly necessary due to jury deadlock did Respondent, who was unavailable, not have a right to be present for the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial as to that count, and if Respondent did have a right to be present, was the error in declaring a mistrial in his absence harmless? 3) Assuming that the trial court committed reversible error in declaring a mistrial as to a deadlocked count in Respondent’s absence, did CSA err in holding that dismissal of the deadlocked count, rather than retrial, was the appropriate remedy?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1443, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)
019 Misc.
2015 Fangman Genuine Title   2016-03-31  

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

Question - Does Md. Code. Ann., Real Prop., § 14-127 imply a private right of action?

072
2015 Morton Schlotzhauer 2015-12-18 2016-04-01  

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA fail to credit and respect the discretion of the trial court and announce new mandates for a court in ruling on a Motion to Alter or Amend under MD Rule 2-534? 2) Did CSA misapply the law of relation back when it vacated the decision of the trial court and allowed plaintiff to pursue her original complaint which she had filed when not the real party in interest?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 49, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]
073
2015 Keller-Bee State 2015-12-18 2016-04-01  

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA properly find that clerical employees of the district courts are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for negligent torts which result in injury to a citizen? 2) Did CSA fail to adequately and properly follow this Court’s decision in Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (1995) which held that a judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity but left open the question of whether clerical employees of the district courts were also entitled to such immunity?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1110, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

076
2015 Sieglein Schmidt 2015-12-18 2016-04-01  

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

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2616, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

071
2015 Jackson State   2016-04-04   DNA Appeal

080
2015 CashCall Comm'r of Financial Reg. 2015-12-18 2016-04-04  

Commercial Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act (“MCSBA”) does not require “’a direct payment’ from the consumer,” despite this Court’s contrary ruling in Gomez v. Jackson Hewitt, 427 Md. 128 (2012), that MCSBA requires that “any payment … must come directly from the consumer”? 2) Can a borrower’s repayments of principal and interest be treated as a fee paid “directly” “in return” for a loan marketer’s assistance in obtaining the loan, simply because the principal previously included an origination fee whose benefits inured entirely to the original third-party lender?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1477, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

075
2015 Taylor State 2015-12-18 2016-04-04  

Criminal Law – 1) Under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, may a law enforcement officer search a vehicle when he knows nothing more than the fact that the driver has been arrested for DUI and that, in his experience, evidence of DUI may be found inside the vehicle? 2) Must a vehicular search be supported by some quantum of particularized suspicion based on articulable facts? 3) Does the Fourth Amendment countenance a per se rule permitting a vehicular search in any case where the crime of arrest is one that may generate physical evidence? 4) Under the circumstances of this case, was the search of Petitioner’s vehicle unconstitutional?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 494, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

082
2015 Motor Vehicle Admin. Seenath 01-27-2016 2016-04-05  

Transportation Law – Does the standard Advice of Rights form (DR-15) provide the necessary information to a driver who holds a commercial driver’s license of the consequences of submitting to a test of blood alcohol content if the driver’s results are 0.08 or more?

Circuit Court for Montgomery Co., No. 405656V

078
2015 McGhie State 2015-12-18 2016-04-05  

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

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2469, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

079
2015 Conover Conover 2015-12-18 2016-04-05  

Estates & Trusts – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner is a “third party,” where Petitioner is a legal parent under E.T. § 1-208(b)(4)? 2) Should Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661 (2008), be reconsidered?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2099, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinions]