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

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]

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

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

011
2016 Bd. of Physicians Geier 2016-04-22 2016-09-09
[Oral Arguments]
2017-01-23
[Opinion]

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]

2017-02-24
[Opinion]

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]

016
2016 Eastern Shore Title Ochse 2016-05-20 2016-10-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
2016-02-21
[Opinion]

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]

015
2016 Hartman State 2016-05-20 2016-10-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
 

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)

047 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Phillips   2016-10-13
[Oral Argument]

2017-02-22
[Opinion]

2016-10-14
[PC Order]

Attorney disciplinary matter.
013
2016 Breck Md. State Police 2016-04-22 2016-10-13
[Oral Argument]
 

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
[Oral Argument]
 

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

2016-10-13
Reargument
[Oral Argument]

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)

050
2016 Lamone Schlakman 2016-10-06 2016-10-18
[Oral Arguments]

2017-02-01
[Opinion]

2016-10-18
[PC Order]

Election Law – Did the trial court err in entering an ex parte temporary restraining order that requires the Appellants to remove the name of a qualified candidate from the ballot in Baltimore City Councilmanic District No. 12 for the 2016 General Election?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1492, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

011 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Sweitzer   2016-11-03
[Oral Arguments]

2017-02-22
[Opinion]

2016-11-04
[PC Order]

Attorney disciplinary matter.
024
2016 Collins State 2016-06-23 2016-11-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

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
[Oral Arguments]
 

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]

027
2016 In Re: Cody H.   2016-07-11 2016-11-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

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)

005 Misc.
2016 In the Matter of Hon. White     2016-11-04
[Oral Arguments]
2017-02-22
[Opinion]
Judicial Disabilities Commission matter.
031
2016 URS Corp. Ft. Myer Construction 2016-08-19 2016-12-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in deciding Respondent’s appeal when there is no final judgment in the case? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the trial judge’s finding that Respondent had maintained its case without substantial justification was clearly erroneous? 3) Did CSA err in holding that the trial judge’s denial of Respondent’s amended motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 16, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

038
2016 Johnson State 2016-08-19 2016-12-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court’s grant of Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (“MJOA”) on the express basis of legally insufficient evidence preclude further proceedings under the Md. common law of double jeopardy and/or the Federal Constitutional prohibition upon double jeopardy? 2) Was the trial court’s grant of the MJOA procedurally proper because the trial court has the authority to reconsider and retract the grant of a mistrial? 3) Was the trial court’s grant of the MJOA legally proper because the court retained fundamental jurisdiction to render the ruling? 4) Even assuming arguendo that the grant of the MJOA was procedurally flawed, under the Md. common law of double jeopardy was an acquittal upon the express basis of legally insufficient evidence nevertheless final and binding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 189, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

040
2016 State Ebb 2016-09-02 2016-12-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did the trial court properly deny a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence in which the Petitioner neither (a) claimed innocence, or (b) presented any meaningful “new” evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1427, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

034
2016 Copsey Park 2016-08-19

2016-12-05
[Oral Arguments]

This recording is in two parts:
Part 1
Part 2

 

Torts – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of the negligence of non-party, subsequent treating physicians, including evidence that they were once defendants in the instant suit? 2) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on superseding cause when the negligence of all the treating physicians amounted to one indivisible injury, that being death?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2170, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

036
2016 Gupta State 2016-08-19 2016-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) When a judge violates Md. Rule 4-326(d) by communicating an ex parte answer to a juror’s question that “pertains to the action”, without disclosing it to the defendant or any lawyer, can the presumption of prejudice be overcome by adding a new standard of review claiming the judge’s ex parte answer was not “substantive” enough? 2) Did the trial court err by not granting pre-trial suppression of Petitioner’s custodial interrogation statement after finding he communicated repeated demands for a lawyer to police officers while he was locked up in a cell just before being interrogated?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1185, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

043
2016 Bd. Of Liquor License Comm'rs Kougl 2016-09-02 2016-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
2017-02-17
[Opinion]

Alcoholic Beverages – Did the Liquor Board correctly interpret its rules to impose upon licensees strict liability for sexual display, performance, or illegal activity conducted on licensed premises, where the pertinent portions of the rules contain no language limiting a licensee’s responsibility to situations where the licensee has actual or constructive knowledge of the offending conduct?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 935, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

035
2016 Yuan Johns Hopkins Univ. 2016-08-19 2016-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Labor & Employment – 1) Did CSA err in precluding Md. employees from bringing wrongful termination claims based on retaliation for reporting research misconduct, by refusing to recognize the federal law prohibiting research misconduct as a public policy basis, contrary to this Court’s recognition of wrongful termination claims? 2) Did CSA err in precluding Md. employees from bringing conversion claims based on the employer’s conversion of the employee’s personal research materials, by improperly drawing inferences in favor of Respondent when it interpreted Respondent’s research materials policy?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 600, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

030
2016 Bainbridge St. Elmo White Flint Exp. Realty 2016-08-19 2016-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Contract Law – Did CSA undermine Nova Research v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 405 Md. 435 (2008), concerning the limited circumstances under which a contractual indemnity provision can be read as a first-party fee shifting provision overriding the American Rule that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 376, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

036 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Dyer & Gray   2017-01-05
[Oral Arguments]

  Attorney disciplinary matter.
033
2016 Elvaton Towne Condo. Rose 2016-08-19 2017-01-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Real Property – 1) Does Md. law permit and do Petitioner’s Declaration and Bylaws provide authority to implement rules that temporarily suspend unit owners who are delinquent in their condominium assessments from using the community parking lot and pool? 2) Did CSA err by finding that Respondents were precluded from pursuing a declaratory judgment related to Petitioner’s Statement of Lien, which established an interested in Respondents’ real property, and Respondents’ only procedural remedy was to pursue a defense in a money damages consumer collection action pending in the District Court?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1033, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

032
2016 Rohrer Humane Society, Washington Co. 2016-08-19 2017-01-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does Criminal Law § 10-615 permit the notice and removal of an animal under §§ 10-615(c) and (d) when the animal was seized pursuant to a search and seizure warrant and is in the custody of the State? 2) Must the factors and conditions that permit the removal of an animal pursuant to § 10-615(c) exist at the time the “notice of removal” is given to the owner under § 10-615? 3) Does the denial of a petition for the return of animals pursuant to § 10-615(d)(2) during the pendency of a criminal charge against the owner pursuant to § 10-604 result in the loss of ownership and disposal of those animals, or is the denial temporary until there is a final disposition of the criminal matter?

Circuit Court for Washington County (No. 21-C-15-054127)

047
2016 Edwards State   2017-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

  DNA Appeal

042
2016 UFCWIU Wal-Mart Stores 2016-09-02 2017-01-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Labor & Employment – Did CSA err when it held that this case does not involve a labor dispute and the National Labor Relations Act does not preempt Walmart’s claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 376, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

049
2016 State Bey 2016-09-28 2017-01-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in concluding that Criminal Law § 3-315, which prohibits engaging in a continuing course of conduct with a child, prohibits more than one conviction and sentence per victim, regardless of the duration of the abuse or the type of sexual acts committed?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 413, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

045
2016 Cain Midland Funding 2016-09-02 2017-01-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that a debt buyer’s pattern of filing thousands of collection actions in Md. courts, and obtaining judgments in those actions, was unrelated to a later putative class action seeking a judicial declaration that those earlier judgments were void and disgorgement of the money so obtained, thus finding the doctrine of waiver inapplicable and permitting the debt buyer to compel arbitration on an individual basis? 2) In concluding that no waiver of the right to arbitrate had occurred, did CSA err in disregarding the tactical timing of the debt buyer’s motion to compel arbitration, which it filed only after a CSA opinion in a related case that was adverse to the debt buyer’s litigation position?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 530, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

055
2016 State Baker 2016-10-12 2017-02-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court failed to articulate sufficiently the basis for its determination of manifest necessity for a retrial? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1467, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

078
2016 Parker Hamilton 2016-12-14 2017-02-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Civil Procedure – 1) Did the Legislature overrule this Court’s decision in Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52 (1993), when it amended Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc § 5-201 in wrongful death cases? 2) As a matter of first impression, and consistent with Piselli v. 75th Street Medical, 371 Md. 188 (2002), does requiring a minor to file a wrongful death claim before he reaches the age of majority violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2765, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

053
2016 MVA Styslinger 2016-10-12 2017-02-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Transportation – Did the ALJ err, in a license-suspension hearing conducted under TR § 205.1(f), by requiring MVA to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a licensee who has refused to take a blood test was driving or attempting to drive when, as the ALJ found, the investigating officer had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the licensee was attempting to drive while impaired?

Circuit Court for Montgomery Co., No. 412953

052
2016 MVA Krafft 2016-10-12 2017-02-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Transportation – In an alcohol test refusal, implied consent case, is it enough to support a license suspension that an officer reasonably believed that the licensee, whose vehicle was involved in an accident in front of his house and who is found in an intoxicated condition in his house with the door open had been driving his vehicle while intoxicated or must the MVA establish as much by a preponderance of the evidence?

Circuit Court for Somerset County, No. 19-C-16-017845

056
2016 Norman State 2016-10-12 2017-02-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issue – Criminal Law – Does the smell of raw marijuana coming from a car stopped for a traffic violation provide police with reasonable suspicion to believe that all passengers in the car are armed and dangerous, such that a pat down, or Terry frisk, of the passengers is permissible, in the absence of any factors suggesting that any of the passengers posed a risk to the officer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1408, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

044
2016 Cruz-Quintanilla State 2016-09-02 2017-02-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – May a sentencing court consider a criminal defendant’s gang membership when the State presents no evidence (1) that the underlying crime is gang related or (2) that the defendant committed any criminal actions on behalf of the gang?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1505, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

008 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Powers   2017-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
057
2016 Rogers Home Equity USA 2016-10-28 2017-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Can an appellate court decline to address the correctness of the trial court’s reasoning when granting summary judgment and then affirm the summary judgment relying on a different factual basis than that relied upon by the trial court where the trial court had discretion to deny summary judgment, the alternative basis required resolution of critical facts in dispute, and the appellate court rendered its decision without the benefit of a complete record? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the grant of summary judgment on a factual basis not relied upon by the trial court, when the factual support was first presented to the trial court by Respondent during the hearing on summary judgment, not allowing Petitioner time to ensure a complete factual record as to the issue? 3) Did CSA err in affirming the grant of summary judgment in reliance on a medical expert’s opinion stated during her deposition which, in turn, relied upon the resolution of a material fact in dispute, when the trial court did not rely upon this opinion as a reason for granting summary judgment, the issues could only be determined by resolving disputes of fact, and the record contained only non-consecutive pages of the deposition transcript? 4) Did CSA invade the province of the jury and make a determination of fact in affirming a grant of summary judgment? 6) Did the trial court err in granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and in denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, on the ground that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 164, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

058
2016 Levitas Christian 2016-10-28 2017-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Did CSA err in reconsidering all issues in this case when this Court’s order for “reconsideration in light of Roy v. Dackman, 445 Md. 23 (2015), should only have impacted the issue of expert qualifications? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding the medical expert’s testimony where the record showed that the expert did not have a sufficient factual basis to support either his opinion as to the source of lead exposure or the cause and extent of Respondent’s alleged injuries?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2392, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

029
2016 Wallace State   2017-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
  DNA Appeal

059
2016 AFSCME University of Maryland 2016-10-28 2017-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
2017-02-17
[PC Order]

Labor & Employment – 1) Does a collective bargaining agreement that directs that an employee may only be disciplined for cause abrogate at-will employment? 2) Does a right to process for a public employee abrogate at-will employment?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1130, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

061
2016 Lewis State 2016-11-09 2017-03-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) If an out-of-state witness is in Maryland pursuant to a summons issued by the witness’s home state, and an accompanying judicial order from that state as well as the governing Maryland statute explicitly grant the witness immunity from prosecution in Maryland, may a Maryland court nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over the witness’s prosecution? 2) Is immunity from prosecution waived by failing to file a pre-trial motion under Md. Rule 4-252?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2564, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

062
2016 Deer Automotive Brown 2016-11-09 2017-03-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Civil Procedure – Is an order of the trial court denying a petition to compel arbitration, the sole issue in a separately-docketed case, a final judgment when there is pending a previously-filed case in the same court addressing all the substantive issues between the same parties in the same transactions?

Court of Special Appeals, No, 1266, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

064
2016 Fuentes State 2016-11-09 2017-03-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Was the evidence legally insufficient to support Petitioner’s convictions where the convictions were contingent on Ms. R’s status as a “mentally defective” individual and the State failed to present evidence that she had been diagnosed with either mental retardation or a mental disorder? 2) Where Petitioner’s knowledge of Ms. R’s purported mental deficiency was a required element of both convictions, was it reversible error for the State to inform the jury at closing argument that Petitioner had admitted to taking advantage of her “mental diminished capacity” in an interview that was never admitted into evidence at trial? 3) Where Ms. R’s ability to understand the conduct of others and to communicate with others was central to the jury’s determination of whether she could be considered a “mentally defective” individual, did the trial court err in refusing to allow the defense to present employment performance evaluations that assessed both of these skills during her employment, when the sexual activity took place?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 483, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

063
2016 Amster Baker 2016-11-06 2017-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

State Government – Does the invocation of the Commercial Exemption in the Md. Public Information Act eliminate the statutory bias favoring disclosure, judicial oversight of facts and efforts to facilitate access to non-commercial or publicly known information?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1801, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

065
2016 State Crawley 2016-11-15 2017-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA improperly vacate Respondent’s corrected sentence, where the trial court, pursuant to Greco v. State, 427 MD. 477 (2012), corrected the illegality in Respondent’s sentence by the addition of a period of probation in order to effectuate the split sentence imposed in the case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 467, Sept. Term, 2013 (unreported)

068
2016 Reger Washington Co. Bd. of Education 2016-11-22 2017-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Workers’ Compensation – When a state employee is found to have a compensable injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act and is then found to be entitled to ordinary retirement disability benefits for a different injury, is it inappropriate to absolve the insurer of its liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act and thus prevent the injured worker from obtaining any recovery for a single injury because they recovered for a different injury?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1937, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

070
2016 Clarksville Residents Donaldson Properties 2016-12-02 2017-03-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Zoning & Planning – 1) Was the Board required to make the considerations set forth in Section 130.C of the Zoning Regulations? 2) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” test of Schultz v. Pritts when it failed to conduct an analysis based on the “ordinary or inherent adverse effects” of a Funeral Home? 3) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” of Schultz v. Pritts when it approved the Funeral Home in spite of the surrounding Asian community’s deep-seated cultural aversion to the death industry? 4) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” test of Schultz v. Pritts when it approved the removal of a natural forest along a Tier II stream to accommodate construction of the Funeral Home?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1762, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

072
2016 Bellard State 2016-12-02 2017-03-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does Criminal Law Article, § 2-304 give criminal defendants the right to have a jury determine whether they should be sentenced to life with parole or life without the possibility of parole? 2) Is Maryland’s sentencing scheme for life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1281, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

071
2016 Select Portfolio Saddlebrook West Utility 2016-12-02 2017-03-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Real Property – 1) Can the procedure for lien creation be read out of the Maryland Contract Lien Act? 2) Has the rule against perpetuities been eliminated in Maryland? 3) Does the holder of an interest in property have standing to challenge the grant of rights in that property to another party by the government?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1911, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

074
2016 Brown State 2016-12-02 2017-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in concluding that when the State charges misdemeanors by criminal information in the circuit court no preliminary hearing is required?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1094, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

081 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Shuler   2017-03-30   Attorney disciplinary matter.
066
2016 Prince George's Co. Chaney Enterprises 2016-11-15 2017-03-30  

Land Use – 1) Does § 22-407 of the Land Use Article (“L.U.”) and Md. Rule 7-201, et seq., authorize the filing of a petition for judicial review as a modality to maintain a judicial challenge to an area master plan? 2) Does L.U. § 22-407 and Md. Rule 7-201 et seq., authorize a non-party to an agency proceeding approving an area master plan to file a petition for judicial review as a modality to maintain a judicial challenge to the approved plan? 3) Does Anne Arundel Co. v. Bell, 442 Md. 539 (2015) require Respondents to demonstrate taxpayer standing in order to maintain a judicial challenge to an area master plan? 4) Did Respondents fail to exhaust administrative remedies? 5) Did CSA err when it invalidated Petitioner’s area master plan? 6) Are the mining restrictions, including the categorical ban on mining, imposed by Petitioners through amendments to the Subregion 5 Master Plan are preempted by the comprehensive and all-encompassing State law regulatory scheme governing surface mining?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1032, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

073
2016 Chateau Foghorn Hosford 2016-12-02 2017-03-30  

Real Property – Did CSA err in its preemption analysis by concluding that Section 8-402.1 of the Real Property Article (Md. Code Ann.) does not do “major damage” to the clear and manifest intent of Congress and the express language of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development’s implementing regulations for project-based rental subsidy programs?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 852, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

077
2016 Powell DHMH 2016-12-02 2017-03-31  

Criminal Procedure – 1) After a court finds a criminal defendant incompetent to stand trial and in need of mental health treatment and orders the person committed to DHMH for such treatment under § 3-106(b) of the Criminal Procedure Article (“Crim. Proc.”), does the court have the authority to specify the date by which DHMH must comply with the court’s order? 2) After a court finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial and in need of mental health treatment, does Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights require the individual to be removed from jail or detention and placed in a DHMH mental health facility by the date set in the court’s §3-106(b) commitment order or by a reasonably short time thereafter?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1596, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

075
2016 Vito Grueff 2016-12-02 2017-03-31  

Estates & Trusts – Did CSA err by ignoring the intent of the settlor, as expressed in the plain and unambiguous language of the Trust instrument, by holding an amendment clause cannot be used to modify the beneficiary section of the Trust, even though the amendment complied with the plain language of the amendment clause?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1878, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

084
2016 State Copes 2017-01-09 2017-04-03  

Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in excluding the evidence recovered by the police?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 580, Sept. Term, 2016 (Unreported)

006 AG


013 AG
2016


2016
Attorney Grievance Bellamy   2017-04-03   Attorney disciplinary matter
076
2016 Rochkind Stevenson 2016-12-02 2017-04-03  

Torts – 1) Did CSA err when it determined under Frye-Reed that it is “generally accepted” that lead exposure causes ADHD (general causation)? 2) Did CSA err by conducting its own, non-adversarial Frye-Reed analysis on whether lead exposure causes ADHD rather than remanding to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing? 3) Did CSA err when it failed to apply the “reliable methodology” requirement of Rule 5-702 to the medical expert’s opinion that lead exposure “caused” Respondent’s ADHD (specific causation)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 418, Sept. Term, 20 15 [Opinion]

059 AG


012 AG
2015


2016
Attorney Grievance Plank   2017-04-04   Attorney disciplinary matter
012 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Kotlarsky   2017-04-04   Attorney disciplinary matter


082
2016 Savage State 2017-01-09 2017-04-04  

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when it concluded that the defense expert’s neuropsychological examination and DSM-IV diagnosis based on a standard battery of tests were subject to Frye-Reed? 2) Where the unrefuted evidence presented at the Frye-Reed hearing established that the defense expert’s methodology consisted of “validated measures that have scientific acceptance and approval within the community of neuropsychologists” and Petitioner was diagnosed under the DSM-IV, did CSA err when it concluded that the defense failed to meet the Frye-Reed standard? 3) Did CSA err when it affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the defense expert’s conclusion that Petitioner “views the world through an untrusting and suspicious perspective, and often is hyper-vigilant to possible threats”? 4) Did CSA err when it permitted the State in closing argument to impeach Petitioner’s testimony based on his failure to tell the police at any time prior to trial that he acted in self-defense?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 323, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

025 Misc.
2016 Thomas State   2017-05-04  

Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Question - Did the circuit court err in declining to ask prospective jurors trial counsel's proposed voir dire question as to whether prospective jurors would 'give greater weight to the testimony of a police officer based on the officer's occupation' and, instead, asked whether the prospective jurors would 'give more or less weight to the testimony of a physician, a clergyman, a firefighter, a police officer, psychiatrist, social worker, electrician or any other witness merely because of their title, profession, education, occupation or employment?'

080
2016 Smith State 2017-01-09 2017-05-04  

Criminal Law – 1) Do the holdings in Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 204 (2010), under which a plea agreement is construed according to what a reasonable lay person in the defendant’s position would have understood it to mean, apply when the State challenges a sentence allegedly imposed in violation of Md. Rule 4-243(c)? 2) Would a reasonable lay person in Petitioner’s situation have believed that probation before judgment was precluded by the plea agreement where the agreement was silent as to probation before judgment and required Petitioner to pay restitution? 3) Under Md. Rule 4-243(c), which provides in part that “if [the guilty plea] is accepted, [the judge] may approve the [plea] agreement or defer decision as to its approval or rejection until after such pre-sentence proceedings and investigation as the judge directs,” is the court bound to the plea agreement upon accepting the guilty plea or may it reject the agreement after accepting the plea, and if the latter, did the trial court reject the agreement after accepting Petitioner’s guilty plea? 4) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner’s sentence was imposed in violation of Rule 4-243(c)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2634, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

081
2016 Ray State 2017-01-09 2017-05-04  

Criminal Law – 1) Under this Court’s decisions in Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 204 (2010), which require that a plea agreement is construed according to what a reasonable lay person in the defendant’s position would have understood it to mean, would a reasonable lay person understand a “cap of four years on executed incarceration” to mean that the court could impose suspended time in addition to a four-year term of non-suspended incarceration? 2) Where the trial court bound itself to a “cap of four years on executed incarceration,” but the term “executed” was never explained to Petitioner and he was never informed that the court could impose suspended time in addition to incarceration for up to four years, and the court sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration, with six years suspended, is the sentence imposed on Petitioner illegal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1469, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

079
2016 Castruccio Estate of Castruccio 2017-01-09 2017-05-05  

Estates & Trusts - 1) Is a Will validly executed if (a) the witnesses did not sign on the same page as the testator, or on one physically connected to it, (b) the Will contained no proper attestation clause, and (c) the Will was not otherwise regular on its face because it expressly stated the pages were initialed but they were not? 2) Can a presumption of due execution attach to such a Will, where the only confirmation that the witnesses signed in the presence of the testator is a common font and consecutive page numbering? 3) Can summary judgment as to the validity of the Will properly be granted where two of the witnesses testified the Will was stapled when they signed, and one testified the pages were initialed, but the Will submitted for probate was never stapled or initialed?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1665, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

067
2016 Beaman State   2017-05-05   DNA appeal.

091
2017 Scott State 2017-02-03 2017-05-05  

Criminal Law – 1) Where the State fails to prove the existence of a prior conviction for purposes of imposing a mandatory sentence pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law § 14-101, is the State barred from attempting to prove the prior conviction on remand for resentencing under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Md. common law prohibition against double jeopardy? 2) If so, did CSA err in holding that the State was not barred from attempting to prove the existence of a prior conviction of Petitioner on remand for resentencing? 3) Did the trial court err in resentencing when it concluded it did not have the discretion to make the remanded sentence run concurrently with other sentences that were not remanded for resentencing on appeal? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the issue in question 3 had not been preserved for appellate review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2412, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

089
2016 Moats State 2017-02-03 2017-05-08  

Criminal Law – 1) Does an individual’s suspected involvement in a crime and a police officer’s belief that a cell phone could be used in that crime, without more, constitute probable cause to search and seize that individual’s cell phone? 2) Does the good faith exception to illegal searches and seizures apply in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1219, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

092
2016 Stevenson State 2017-02-03 2017-05-08  

Criminal Law – 1) Did the search warrant applications establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged crimes and Petitioner’s cell phone, such that the warrant-issuing judges had a substantial basis for finding probable cause? 2) Did the trial court err in denying petitioner’s motion to suppress the fruits of a search conducted pursuant to the warrant? 3) If the warrant-issuing judges did not have a substantial basis for finding probable cause, did police nonetheless rely on the warrants in good faith?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 76, Sept. Term. 2016 (Pending)

090
2016 Nat'l Waste Mgrs. Forks of the Patuxent 2017-02-03 2017-05-08  

Zoning & Planning – 1) Did CSA err in failing to reverse the Board’s action and in failing to remand the case with instruction to the Board to grant National Waste Managers’ (“NWM”) fourth variance request? 2) Did CSA err in remanding the case for consideration of whether NWM’s variance was necessary? 3) Did CSA err in construing the county variance statute and in denying preclusive effect to prior adjudications and findings of the Board

Court of Special Appeals, No. 361, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

086
2016 Newton State 2017-02-03 2017-05-09  

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s determination that trial counsel, appellate counsel and the trial court committed reversible error in permitting alternate jurors to be present during jury deliberations?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1751, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

088
2016 Porter State 2017-02-03 2017-05-09  

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA improperly apply harmless error review when, rather than considering the effect of an erroneous imperfect self-defense instruction on the jury’s verdict, it applied de novo review to the trial court’s underlying decision to grant the instruction – a question not before it- resolved that issue in favor of the State, and retroactively determined that the jury would have convicted if the trial had unfolded as CSA believed it should have? 2) If so, did CSA err when it found the provision of legally erroneous instruction on imperfect self-defense harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1916, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

083
2016 State Rich 2017-01-09 2017-05-09  

Criminal Law – Where the trial court denied Respondent’s coram nobis petition challenging his 2001 conviction without a hearing, in light of Smith v. State, 443 Md. 572 (2015), did CSA err in not remanding this matter to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether Respondent was, in fact, unaware of the nature of a conspiracy charge at the time of his plea?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 601, Sept. Term, 2010 [Opinion]