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
025
2015 Baltimore Co. FOP Lodge No. 4 2015-04-17 2015-11-09
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-25
[Opinion]

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]

074
2015 State Hart 2015-12-18 2016-03-31
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-19
[Opinon]
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)
072
2015 Morton Schlotzhauer 2015-12-18 2016-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-19
[Opinon]

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]
078
2015 McGhie State 2015-12-18 2016-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-24
[Opinion]

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]

033 Misc.
2015 Application of Brown     2016-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-24
[Opinion]
In the Matter of the Application of Dierdre Paulette Brown for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
086
2015 Kenwood Gardens Condos. Whalen Props. 2016-01-27 2016-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-19
[Opinon]

Zoning & Planning – 1) Does the County Board of Appeals have the authority and responsibility to review whether an “appearance of impropriety” taints and invalidates a County Council Resolution approving the initiation of a favorable Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) Zoning process consistent with its responsibility to review all procedural and constitutional issues per Prince George’s County v. Ray’s Used Cars, 398 Md. 632 (2007)? 2) Is there a serious and extraordinary problem of “appearance of impropriety” when there is an undisputed e-mail record linking the PUD Developer’s illegal campaign contributions to the County Council member with the Council member’s sponsoring of the PUD resolution? 3) Pursuant to the Baltimore County Charter Section, 1009 and MD case law is the County Council’s adoption of a PUD Resolution as to this specific property substantially an administrative action, even though not the final action in the process, and so clearly reviewable for a serious “appearance of impropriety”? 4) Consistent with County Council for Montgomery County v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691 (1975), even if County Council Resolution #108 is legislative in character, is it still subject to review where there is undisputed evidence of an “impropriety” which the reviewing administrative agencies and CSA all criticized and said should not be condoned? 5) Is the “appearance of impropriety” compounded where a County Council member mentioned in the State Prosecutor’s Statement of Facts was raising dollars for an election campaign and then followed up the PUD Resolution by sponsoring and facilitating the approval of legislation (Bill 38-12) which relaxed the long-standing relevant compatibility standard applicable particularly to this PUD, and favoring it in a way which had no rational relationship to compatibility?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2602, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

085
2015 Chase State 2016-01-27 2016-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-19
[Opinon]

Criminal Law – 1) Does reasonable suspicion that an individual is engaged in drug activity, by itself, constitute reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous? 2) Under this Court’s case law recognizing that a display of force by the police, such as placing a suspect in handcuffs, constitutes an arrest requiring probable cause absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, was Petitioner under arrest when he was removed from his vehicle and placed in handcuffs? 3) If the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was armed and dangerous when he was removed from his vehicle and handcuffed, was that reasonable suspicion dispelled when the officers patted him down and found no weapons, thereby rendering his continued detention an arrest that was not supported by probable cause?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1394, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

088
2015 Givens State 2016-01-27 2016-05-05
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: The arguments for this case begin at timestamp 1:55.
2016-08-22
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in refusing to strike the verdict for felony murder? 2) Is a motion to strike an inconsistent verdict waived if not made before the discharge of the jury?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 699, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

084
2015 Sellman State 2016-01-27 2016-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-24
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding the police had reasonable suspicion to believe Petitioner was armed and dangerous, simply because he was stopped for generally suspicious conduct in a high crime area where thefts from cars had been reported at some unspecified time in the past? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the crime of theft from cars implies the use of a deadly weapon?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 913, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

032 Misc.
2015 Application of Gjini     2016-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
2016-07-07
[Opinion]
In the Matter of the Application of Otion Gjini for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
093
2015 Bandy Clancy 2016-01-27 2016-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-24
[Opinion]

Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the Orphans’ Court err in construing the decedent’s last will and testament to require the personal representative to fund the family trust prior to the payment of estate taxes, such that the older children’s trusts will bear the burden of all the estate’s federal and state estate taxes? 2) Did the Orphans’ Court err in finding that a marital deduction savings clause in a codicil to decedent’s will had the effect of overriding and eliminating the fundamental structure created by the will?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1595, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

101
2015 United Insurance Insurance Administration 2016-02-19 2016-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
2015-08-25
[Opinion]

Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Must a party who challenges the constitutionality and retroactive effect of a newly-enacted Maryland statute exhaust administrative remedies of those challenges before a court can resolve them in a declaratory judgment action?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 20, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

103
2015 Smith Delaware North Companies 2016-02-19 2016-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
2016-08-19
[Opinon]

Health Occupations – 1) Does the privilege set forth under § 14-410 of the Health Occupations Article (“H.O.”) bar the admission of evidence of a Board of Physicians Consent Order to impeach a physician who is offering testimony as an expert witness? 2) Was the privilege set forth under § 14-410 intended to be strictly limited to medical malpractice actions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 968, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

073 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Framm  

2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments]

2016-02-04
[Oral Arguments]

2016-08-24
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
105
2015 State Adams-Bey 2016-02-19 2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments}
2016-08-25
[Opinion]

Criminal Procedure – Where the legislature has mandated that a trial court “may reopen a postconviction proceeding … if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” did CSA err when it ordered the trial court on remand to reopen Respondent’s postconviction proceeding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 113, Sept. Term, 2013

102
2015 Comm'r of Financial Regulation Brown, Brown & Brown 2016-02-19 2016-06-02
[Oral Arguments}
2016-08-19
[Opinon]

Commercial Law – 1) Does the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act apply to providers of loan modification services? 2) Where the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act expressly exempts from its coverage only attorneys who meet specified statutory criteria, are attorneys who do not satisfy those criteria subject to the statute?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1327, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

019 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Shockett   2016-09-01
[Oral Arguments]
2016-09-06
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
001
2016 Cane EZ Rentals 2016-02-19 2016-09-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner the opportunity to assert and prove a defense under the Rent Escrow Statute to the landlord’s summary ejectment action? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s defense seeking rent offsets in the summary ejectment action?

Circuit Court for Calvert Co., No. 04-C-15-000089

005
2016 Washington State   2016-09-01
[Oral Arguments]
  DNA appeal
003
2016 Bottini Dept. of Finance 2016-02-19 2016-09-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA erroneously conclude that a seized bank account was “money” within the meaning of Md.’s CDS forfeiture statute where different deadlines for filing a forfeiture petition apply to “money” than to other types of tangible or intangible personal property? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply to Petitioners’ seized bank account the longer post-conviction forfeiture petition filing deadline for “money”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1857, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported).

008
2016 Colvin State 2016-03-25 2016-09-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s conclusion that, upon request for a jury poll, polling the jury foreperson is unnecessary to ensure a unanimous verdict? 2) Is the claimed defect in the polling procedure cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2341, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

009
2016 Hanover Investments Volkman 2016-03-25 2016-09-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA erroneously impose new standards under Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. (“CJP”) § 3-409(c) by depriving the trial court of all discretion to adjudicate a declaratory judgment action when there is a concurrent proceeding? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply, and thereby alter, the standards under CJP § 3-409(a) and (c) by concluding that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to support the trial court’s findings of unusual and compelling circumstances?

Corut of Special Appeals, No. 1595, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

010
2016 Mitchell Motor Vehicle Admin. 2016-04-22 2016-09-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Constitutional Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that personalized vanity plates are a non-public forum in which motorists who pay the fee to express their 7-character message may be censored despite expressing otherwise constitutionally protected private speech? 2) Did CSA err in choosing to censor a Spanish word based on the most offensive definition it could imagine, despite the existence of innocuous definitions of the term?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 713, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinon]

027 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Ucheomumu   2016-09-08
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
054 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Mollock   2016-09-08
[Oral Arguments]
2016-09-09
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
094
2015 Spencer State 2016-01-27 2016-09-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court commit reversible error by reseating three jurors who had been struck by the defense where there was no evidence to support a finding of racial discrimination and where counsel’s explanations advanced the defense’s strategy and have previously been accepted by the courts as valid, race-neutral explanations for striking a juror? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of specific intent for a conviction of attempted second-degree murder?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 493, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

004
2016 State Hines 2016-02-19 2016-09-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a joint trial, was the trial court within its discretion in admitting a co-defendant’s exculpatory statement which did not mention Respondent, but did mention the street where Respondent lived? 2) Was any error in admitting the co-defendant’s statement harmless?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2334, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

002
2016 SPAW, LLC Annapolis 2016-02-19 2016-09-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err by failing to dismiss the city’s civil citation for a municipal infraction against Petitioner under § 6-103 of the Local Government Article (“L. G.”) and awarding the city broad injunctive relief? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that abatement of a municipal infraction is not a “penalty” under L. G. § 6-110 for the purpose of applying the one year statute of limitations in § 5-107 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article? 3) Did the trial court err by ignoring newly amended Md. Rules 2-501, which excludes the filing of a motion for summary judgment “after evidence is received at trial on the merits,” when the trial court granted summary judgment in the middle of trial before Petitioner could either respond in writing or present any evidence? 4) Did the trial court err in holding that municipal infractions were civil matters subject to Title 2 of the Md. Rules?

Circiut Court for Anne Arundel County, Nos. 02-C-13-181644 & 02-C-13-181663

006
2016 Jamison State   2016-09-09
[Oral Arguments]
  DNA appeal
011
2016 Bd. of Physicians Geier 2016-04-22 2016-09-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err in rejecting the defendants’ assertion of absolute quasi-judicial immunity and denying reconsideration of its default order on liability? 2) Did the trial court err in compelling the production of personal financial information in aid of punitive damages despite the defendants’ absolute quasi-judicial immunity? 3) Did the trial court err in granting the Respondents’ motion for sanctions based on the Petitioners’ refusal to produce materials protected by the deliberative process, executive, attorney-client, and attorney-work-product privileges and the mandatory nondisclosure requirement of Health Occupations § 14-410?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 124, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

052
2015 State Jones 2015-08-21 2016-09-09
[Reargument]

2016-01-12
[Oral Arguments]

2016-05-23:
[Order for supplemental briefing and reargument]

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?

Supplemental briefing and reargument ordered on the following additional issue: In deciding this case, should the Court re-consider its holding in Roary v. State, 385 Md. 217, 226-36, 867 A.2d 1095, 1100-6 (2005), as to whether first-degree assault may serve as a predicate for second-degree felony murder?

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

007 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Thomas-Bellamy   2016-10-06   Attorney disciplinary matter.
016
2016 Eastern Shore Title Ochse 2016-05-20 2016-10-06  

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) May a party recover their attorney’s fees for the exact same matter more than one time as “damages”, even in separate cases? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in the legal standard used to determine the correct amount of the damages award pursuant to the collateral litigation rule for legal expenses incurred? 3) Does the collateral source rule apply to an award of damages for the breach of two separate contracts involving different parties under different circumstances in different courts where separate consideration was paid for each contract?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 999, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

014
2016 Balfour Beatty Rummel Klepper & Kahl 2016-04-22 2016-10-06  

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by applying the economic loss doctrine to a limited class of professionals – designers in government contracts – to shield an engineer from liability to a contractor when the engineer knows that its services will be relied upon to the contractor’s detriment if the engineer’s services are negligently performed? 2) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action under Restatement of Torts (Second) § 552 against an engineer who negligently supplied information when all other elements are met and when other professional providers of information are not so protected? 3) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action for negligent misrepresentation against an engineer when the engineer: (a) intended the contractor to rely upon the representations; (b) knew that the contractor would rely upon the design; and (c) knew that the contractor would be harmed if the design was negligently performed?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 496, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

007
2016 Phillips State 2016-03-25 2016-10-06  

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Under the Frye-Reed standard what is “generally accepted as reliable” in analyzing and interpreting complex mixtures of low template “touch” DNA? 2) In this case, was the Prince George’s County Crime Lab’s methodology “generally accepted as reliable” in the relevant scientific field? 3) Did CSA improperly deviate from Frye-Reed by reaching a conclusion without considering evidence from the relevant scientific community, other than the two opinions expressed at a pretrial hearing? 4) Did CSA err in holding that compliance with § 10-915 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article required certification of meeting a non-existent standard neither party advocated?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 456, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

009 AG


025 AG
2015


2015
Attorney Grievance Allenbaugh   2016-10-07   Attorney disciplinary matter.
017
2016 Oliveira Sugarman 2016-05-20 2016-10-07  

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a board of directors entitled to the presumption of the business judgment rule contained in Md. Code Ann, Corps. & Ass’ns § 2-405.1 when responding to a shareholder demand without presenting evidence that the board acted independently, in good faith, and was reasonably informed as required by Boland v. Boland, 423 Md. 296, 31 A.3d 529 (2011)? 2) May shareholders of a Md. corporation bring direct claims against the board of directors for misrepresentations made in a proxy statement soliciting shareholder votes and for breaches of a shareholder-approved incentive stock plan?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1980, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

015
2016 Hartman State 2016-05-20 2016-10-07  

Issue – Criminal Law – Where a defendant enters into a non-binding plea agreement in the District Court in which the State agreed to recommend no incarceration, and subsequently notes a de novo appeal from the final judgment of the District Court, does the State remain obligated to make that sentencing recommendation in the Circuit Court if the defendant pleads guilty?

Circuit Court for Allegany County (No. 01-K-15-016567)

021
2016 Hughes Moyer 2016-06-23 2016-10-07  

Issues – State Personnel & Pensions – 1) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the notice requirements imposed on the State by Md. Code. Ann, State Pers. & Pens. § 11-106(a)(5)? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the minimum level of due process due to Petitioner prior to the State’s deprivation of a property right?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 275, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

015 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Moore   2016-10-11   Attorney disciplinary matter.
052 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Kirwan   2016-10-11   Attorney disciplinary matter.
012
2016 Attar DMS Tollgate 2016-04-22 2016-10-11  

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Does Maryland’s special exception jurisprudence require the Baltimore Co. Board of Appeals to define the boundaries of the neighborhood of the proposed special exception before approving that special exception? If so, did the Board of Appeals’ opinion satisfied Maryland’s minimum requirements for articulating the facts found regarding the neighborhood’s boundaries? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the Applicant met its burden of proof, as articulated by the concurring opinion in People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Loyola College in Maryland, 406 Md. 54 (2008)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2368, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

019
2016 Seley-Radtke Hosmane 2016-05-20 2016-10-11  

Issue – Torts – In a defamation case brought by a private individual, does the heightened standard for overcoming a conditional privilege, as recognized in Jacron Sales Co., Inc. v. Sindorf, 276 Md. 580 (1976), impose a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 689, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

047 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Phillips   2016-10-13   Attorney disciplinary matter.
018
2016 Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Fund for Animals 2016-05-20 2016-10-13  

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the actual prejudice standard in Insurance Art. § 19-110 requires an insurer to prove that, had it received timely notice, the outcome would have been different? 2) Did CSA exceed its authority by instructing the trial court on remand to permit and grant a belated motion for judgment, when such a motion was never filed at the time of trial? 3) Did Petitioner waive the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel by failing to plead that defense in its answer or mention it during discovery? 4) Does collateral estoppel apply to the findings made in the Endangered Species Act case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2598, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

013
2016 Breck Md. State Police 2016-04-22 2016-10-13  

Issue – Public Safety – Did CSA err in holding that Extra-Duty Secondary Employment, as that term is used by the Maryland State Police, is not Secondary Employment within the meaning of Public Safety § 3-103(b)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1661, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

020
2016 Glass Anne Arundel Co. 2016-06-23 2016-10-13  

Issues – State Government – 1) Are the trial courts precluded from making any finding that material sought by a person about himself may be severed from an internal affairs file pertaining to a specific, identified law enforcement officer under the Public Information Act? 2) Does the custodian of records for a governmental unit have any responsibility under the Public Information Act to disclose computerized records created and used in the work of the unit, but stored outside the unit, when the governmental unit has the right and practical ability to retrieve the records on demand? 3) Having determined that the custodians knowingly and willfully failed to conduct a legally adequate search in locations where responsive material is likely to be found, was it error for the trial court to decline to order a remedial search in those locations?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 185, Sept .Term 2015 (Unreported)

064
2015 Brown State 2015-11-20

2016-10-06
Reargument

2016-03-31
[Oral Arguments]

2016-08-29
[Order setting the case for reargument]

2016-04-04
[Order remanding to the circuit court for entry of findings of fact]

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)

082 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Mahone   2016-11-03   Attorney disciplinary matter.
011 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Sweitzer   2016-11-03   Attorney disciplinary matter.
024
2016 Collins State 2016-06-23 2016-11-03  

Issue – Criminal Law –Did the trial court’s method of conducting voir dire fail to reasonably ensure that the court received truthful and accurate responses to its questions, thus constituting an abuse of discretion and violating Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial jury?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 618, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

025
2016 Frederick Classical Bd. of Education 2016-07-11 2016-11-03  

Issues – Education – 1) Did the State Board err in finding that Petitioner contractually agreed to forego funding proportionate to the Local Board’s transportation spending because its students would not necessarily receive transportation from the school? 2) Did the State Board err by deferring to the Local Board’s interpretation of the contract and application of state law and by misstating its own precedent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 42, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

005 Misc.
2016 In the Matter of Hon. White     2016-11-04   Judicial Disabilities Commission matter.
068 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Johnson   2016-11-04   Attorney disciplinary matter.
023
2016 Kor-Ko & Rothamel Dept. of Environment 2016-06-23 2016-11-04  

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) err by interpreting the definition of “premises” in COMAR § 26.11.15.06 to include the entire commercial park rather than one tenant in the multi-tenant commercial park? 2) Did MDE err by concluding that its “air toxics regulations do not apply” anywhere within the entire commercial park? 3) Did MDE err by not evaluating whether emissions of toxic air pollutants will unreasonably endanger the health of the neighboring tenant in the commercial park?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1660, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

027
2016 In Re: Cody H.   2016-07-11 2016-11-04  

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does MD’s restitution statute allowing for recovery of lost earnings “as a direct result of the crime” permit the court to order restitution for lost earnings to be earned in the future and for lost earnings for a randomly selected period of time? 2) Did CSA err in finding that competent evidence was introduced to support the claim for eight months of lost wages?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1190, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

022
2016 Smallwood State 2016-06-23 2016-11-07  

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Where a psychiatrist initially determined that Petitioner was criminally responsible for acts leading to criminal charges and that opinion led Petitioner to withdraw a plea of not criminally responsible (“NCR”) and proceed to trial on an agreed statement of facts and where, approximately 25 years later, the same psychiatrist concluded that Petitioner was in fact NCR at the time he committed the acts leading to the criminal charges, is the psychiatrist’s revised opinion about criminal responsibility newly discovered evidence that creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different such that Petitioner is entitled to relief under Criminal Procedure Article § 8-301? 2) Does § 8-301, which governs petitions for writs of actual innocence, contemplate relief for an individual who was convicted of a crime but who later presents newly discovered evidence that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime? 3) May a person who was convicted after a trial on an agreed statement of facts obtain relief under § 8-301? 4) Does an expert’s opinion that Petitioner was NCR, offered many years after the same expert opined that the petitioner was criminally responsible constitute “newly discovered evidence” under § 8-301? 5) Does the revised expert opinion that Petitioner was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime create a substantial or significant possibility that the result in this case may have been different?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2627, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

028
2016 State, et al. Falcon 2016-07-11 2016-11-07  

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did the trial court err in enjoining portions of Chapter 35 of the 2016 Laws of Md. that alter the composition of the Nominating Commission where the law made permanent changes to the composition of the Commission to make it locally appointed? 2) Did the trial court err in treating members of the Nominating Commission as “officers” within the meaning of Article II, § 15 where they do not exercise any portion of the sovereign power of the State?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 539, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

026
2016 Accokeek, Mattawoman, PIscataway Creeks Public Service Comm'n 2016-07-11 2016-11-07  

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) act outside of its statutory authority by imposing taxes, or mandatory payments, which it was not empowered to enact? 2) Did PSC violate Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to make sufficient findings of fact on the record regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station? 3) Were PSC’s findings regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station under Md. Code Public Utilities § 7-207(e)(2)(ii) supported by substantial evidence in the record?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2437, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]