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
013
2014 Peterson, Jerrod M. State 2013-12-20 2014-10-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in ruling that the attorney-client privilege prevented the co-conspirator’s attorney from testifying about the co-conspirator’s proffer session with a prosecutor and a county homicide detective? 2) Was Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation violated when the trial court limited his cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 3) Did the trial court commit reversible error by limiting Petitioner’s cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 4) Are Petitioner’s claims regarding cross-examination of witnesses properly before this Court for review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1715. Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

047
2014 State Smith 2014-07-18 2014-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in reversing the circuit court’s denial of Respondent’s petition for a writ of coram nobis where Respondent had waived her coram nobis claims, failed to meet her burden of proving that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and was barred from seeking a writ of coram nobis on grounds of laches?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2224, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

007
2014 Spence State 2013-11-22

2015-01-08
[Oral Arguments]

 

Criminal Law – 1) May a police officer search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone as a search incident to arrest without a warrant? 2) Does a trial judge’s announcement that a jury trial waiver is “freely and voluntarily given” comply with Rule 4-246(b)’s requirement that the court “determine[] and announce[] on the record that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1521, Sept. Term, 2011 (pending)

011
2014 Demby State 2013-11-22 2015-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Were Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights violated when an officer, pursuant to a valid arrest, read text messages to and from others located on his cell phone without a warrant? 2) Are the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrines applicable where an officer, using information found by warrantlessly searching an individual’s cell phone, later obtains a search warrant for that cell phone’s contents?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2674, Sept. Term, 2012 (bypass)

043
2014 Sinclair State 2014-07-18 2015-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) May the police search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant, incident to his valid arrest? 2) Did CSA mistakenly conclude that Rule 4-252 is satisfied, and appellate review is available, whenever a trial court allows a previously filed pretrial omnibus motion to be withdrawn “without prejudice”? 3) If so, has Petitioner “waived” his claim under Rule 4-252, thereby precluding any form of appellate review, even discretionary review under Rule 8-131(a)? 4) Even if review under 8-131(a) is legally available, should this Court decline to exercise its discretion to engage in such review here because the record is deficient?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1724, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

073 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Smith  

2015-01-09
[Oral Arguments]

Due to a technical problem there is no video recording of oral arguments for this case. The link above goes to an audio recording.

2015-06-23
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
050
2014 State Department of Assessments & Taxation Andrecs 2014-07-18 2015-02-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

052
2014 Woznicki Geico Gen. Insurance Co. 2014-08-27 2015-03-09
[Oral Arguments]

2015-05-27
[Opinion]

This case and No. 54, Sept. Term, 2014, have one opinion

Insurance Law – 1) In an uninsured/underinsured motorist case, did CSA err when it held that as a matter of law the underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier did not waive its right to written notice of a pending settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier where there was unequivocal testimony from Petitioner’s counsel that he received oral consent to settle from a UIM carrier representative? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the UIM carrier did not bear the burden of proving prejudice arising from the Petitioner’s failure to give written notice of the pending settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 532, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

054
2014 Morse Erie Insurance Exchange 2014-08-27

2015-03-09
[Oral Arguments:
Part 1
Part 2]

This recording is in two parts.

2015-05-27
[Opinion]

This case and No. 52, Sept. Term, 2014, have one opinion.

Insurance Law – When an underinsured motorist insurance company cannot prove prejudice should the law excuse it from paying contracted-for underinsurance benefits because the insured did not strictly comply with the requirements of Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., § 19-511?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 511, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

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

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

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

057
2014 Board of Public Works K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons 2014-08-27 2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
2015-06-03
[Opinion]

Environmental Law – 1) Was Appellee required to await a final administrative decision and exhaust statutory administrative remedies before bringing an action for mandamus, injunction, and declaratory judgment to challenge the administrative procedure adopted to evaluate Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license? 2) Did the trial court err in substituting its judgment for that of the Board with respect to remediating the Wetlands Administrator’s conflict of interest, which involved a previously undisclosed relationship with one of Appellee’s attorneys and his law firm? 3) Did the trial court err in entering a writ of mandamus directing the Board to issue a decision on Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license by October 6, 2014, confining the facts that the Board may consider to those contained in that portion of the administrative record that existed on July 24, 2013, and limiting what the Board may consider in any future action on the project?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1134, Sept. Term, 2014 (Pending)

086 AG
2009 Attorney Grievance Eckel   2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]

2015-05-22
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
069
2014 WSSC LaFarge North America 2014-09-19 2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
2015-06-18
[Opinion]

Public Utilities – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a trial court may exceed the permissible scope of judicial review when considering a “deemed” rejection of a refund claim under PUA § 25-106? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s order mandating that WSSC’s investigative files be produced as part of the agency record pursuant to Md. Rule 7-206?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 886, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

068
2014 Ford Antwerpen Motorcars 2014-09-19 2015-04-01
[Oral Arguments]
2015-06-29
[Opinion]

Commercial Law – Under Md. law, may a car dealer force its customers into binding arbitration of a claim arising from a vehicle sales transaction, when the vehicle sales contract does not contain an arbitration agreement and Md. regulations governing vehicle sales transactions require the vehicle sales contract to “contain[] all agreements of the parties”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2064, Sept. Term, 2013, Pending

072
2014 State Hunt 2014-10-21 2015-04-07
[Oral Arguments]

Arguments for cases no. 72 and 73 are in one recording. Separate files will be uploaded as soon as possible.

2015-06-18
[Opinion]

This case and No. 73, Sept. Term, 2013, have one opinion.

Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly reverse the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s amended petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing where Respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 8-301 and where the CSA ruling was inconsistent with its own case authority on the issue?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 162, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

073
2014 State Hardy 2014-10-21 2015-04-07
[Oral Arguments]

Arguments for cases no. 72 and 73 are in one recording. Separate files will be uploaded as soon as possible.

Case no. 73 begins at time 51:23.

2015-06-18
[Opinion]

This case and No. 72, Sept. Term, 2013, have one opinion.

Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly reverse the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s amended petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing where Respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 8-301 and where the CSA ruling was inconsistent with its own case authority on the issue?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1329, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

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

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

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

077
2014 Wilcox Orellano 2014-10-21 2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
2015-05-28
[Opinion]

Torts – Did CSA err in concluding that a stipulation of dismissal signed by both parties in a health care malpractice claim constituted a “voluntary dismissal ... by the party who commenced the action” as intended by MD Code Ann., Courts & Jud. Proc. § 5-119(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1420, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

067
2014 State Norton 2014-09-19 2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in determining that Norton’s right to confrontation under the federal constitution was violated where a DNA expert testified regarding the work of another DNA analyst, and that expert was a supervisor in the same lab, reviewed the work of the other analyst, and came to his own conclusion that was consistent with the conclusion of the other analyst, but the analyst herself did not testify?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2382, Sept. Term, 2008 [Opinion]

075
2014 Shader Hampton Improv. Assoc. 2014-10-21

2015-04-08
[Oral Arguments]

2015-05-27
[Opinion]

Real Property – 1) Whether the trial court properly held that Respondent was not estopped from claiming that the covenant in question was still valid in light of a prior, unappealed ruling that the covenant had been waived by abandonment? 2) Whether the trial court properly held that the covenant at issue had not been waived or abandoned? 3) Whether beneficiaries of covenants can permit violations of one part of a covenant and still seek enforcement of other parts of the same covenant? 4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not granting pre-trial summary judgment, where collateral estoppel should have prevented the Respondent from re-litigating facts which had been found against it in an unappealed prior action?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 845, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

071
2014 Windesheim Larocca 2014-10-21 2015-04-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Commercial Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that an employee of a lender is a “lender” for purposes of civil liability under the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (“SMLL”)? 2) Did CSA err by holding that the Respondents stated a claim on which relief could be granted under the SMLL? 3) Did CSA err by holding that a cause of action under the SMLL was “another specialty” under § 5-102 of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and therefore entitled to a 12-year statute of limitations? 4) Did CSA err by holding that it was a question of fact to be decided by the jury as to whether Respondents’ claims against Petitioner were barred by the 3-year statute of limitations under § 5-101 of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article? 5) Whether as a matter of law a defendant may be liable under the SMLL, where the false advertising that is the purported basis for the claim occurred orally in a private setting, and where the record contains no evidence that the defendant participated in any way in the communication of the statements allegedly constituting false advertising?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 766, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

065
2014 Counts State 2014-09-19 2015-04-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Is the value of the goods stolen an element of theft, such that amending a charging document on the morning of trial from theft under $1,000 (a misdemeanor) to theft of goods valued between $1,000 and $10,000 (a felony) constitutes a change to the character of the offense requiring the consent of both parties?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1571, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

022 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Shephard   2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
014 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Shuler   2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
2015-06-30
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
082
2014 Scarfield Muntjan 2014-11-19 2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

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

080
2014 Preston State 2014-11-19 2015-05-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Is the “witness promised benefit” jury instruction part of a special class of instructions, as CSA held, such that it remains always discretionary even when it is supported by some evidence? 2) Did the lower court abuse its discretion in declining to give the instruction where an eyewitness provided some evidence that she exchanged her cooperation with the State for free, protective housing? 3) Did the lower court err as a matter of law in declining to instruct the jury as defense counsel requested? 4) Does the record show that there was a “promise” or “testimony” that was “as a result of” a promise? 5) Is protective housing provided to a witness in a first degree murder case the type of “benefit” contemplated by the “witness promised benefit” pattern instruction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1293, September Term, 2012 [Opinion]

005 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Van Dusen   2015-05-07
[Oral Arguments]

2015-05-08
[PC Order]

2015-06-23
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
083
2014 Hranicka Chesapeake Surgical 2014-11-19 2015-05-07
[Oral Arguments]
2015-06-18
[Opinion]

Workers’ Compensation –Whether the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission has the authority to generate its own administrative rule to relate a claim back to the date it was electronically filed, for limitations purposes.

Court of Special Appeals, No. 327, September Term, 2013, Unreported

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

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

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

006 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Katz   2015-05-11
[Oral Arguments]

2015-05-11
[PC Order]

2016-06-23
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
084
2014 Md. Dept. of State Police Dashiell 2014-12-10 2015-05-11
[Oral Arguments]
 

State Government – 1) Did the Department of State Police properly invoke the Maryland Public Information Act’s (MPIA) exemptions for personnel records and records that are confidential under other law – here, the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights – to deny a request for the internal affairs records of an investigation into the conduct of a specifically identified state trooper? 2) May a complaining victim be considered the subject of an investigation such that she is a “person in interest” under the MPIA?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1078, September Term, 2011 [Opinion]

018 AG

003 AG
2013

2014
Attorney Grievance Hamilton   2015-05-12
[Oral Arguments]
2015-05-13
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
034 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Trye   2015-05-12
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
090
2014 State Waine 2014-12-19 2015-05-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

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

009 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Haley   2015-06-03
[Oral Arguments]
2015-06-05
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
087
2014 Cooper Rodriguez 2014-12-19 2015-06-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Is a correctional officer who acts without malice in performing discretionary acts within the scope of his public duties entitled to public official immunity? 2) Did the trial court properly strike the jury’s finding of gross negligence by the correctional officer where there was no evidence of an intentional failure to perform a duty or of reckless disregard for the life or property of another?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 748, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

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

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

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

046
2014 Wicomico Co. Dept. of Social Serv's B.A. 2014-07-18 2015-06-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

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

056 AG

018 AG

026 AG
2013

2014

2014
Attorney Grievance Gray   2015-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
034 Misc.
2014 Application of Tabiei     2015-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
2015-06-05
[Order]
Application of Tabiei for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
088
2014 Griffin Lindsey 2014-12-19 2015-06-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

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

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

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

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

007 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Storch   2015-09-02   Attorney disciplinary matter
001
2015 Police Civilian Empl. Ass'n. Prince George's Co. Police 2015-01-23 2015-09-02  

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the arbitrator’s award in this case under the theory that the decision was contrary to an explicit public policy and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the employees’ Weingarten rights under the collective bargaining agreement was too expansive? 2) If CSA erred, did the arbitrator’s order of reinstatement and back pay as the remedy for the violation exceed his authority?

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

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

Criminal Law – 1) Where a criminal defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial, must a court find that the defendant has regained competence before he or she can be tried? 2) Did the trial court err when it found Petitioner to be competent at sentencing without ordering a new competency evaluation or otherwise taking new evidence on the question of Petitioner’s competency?

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

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

Corporations & Associations – 1) Does a third party have standing to challenge a limited liability company’s authority to prosecute or defend against litigation? 2) Where a limited liability company’s operating agreement vests power to act for the company in two persons acting jointly, and one cannot or will not act, is the other acting individually authorized to act for the company? 3) Is CSA’s holding that an operating agreement’s provision authorizing its manager to execute and sign all documents in each member’s name does not allow the manager to amend the operating agreement itself inconsistent with the Limited Liability Act’s policy to give the maximum effect to the principles of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of operating agreements?

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

006
2015 Roy Dackman 2015-01-23 2015-09-03  

Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it found that a board-certified pediatrician was not qualified as an expert to address the nature and extent of Petitioner’s injuries from childhood lead exposure? 2) Did CSA utilize the incorrect standard of review when it ignored the initial finding that the pediatrician was qualified to offer medical causation opinions and then reviewed his qualifications de novo?

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

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

Torts – 1) Did CSA err by adopting a rule that any replacement of a component excuses the original manufacturer from any duty to warn without considering whether replacement of that component constituted a “substantial modification” of the condition of the product? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to the Petitioner to warn of exposure to asbestos dust created by maintenance of their pumps’ asbestos-containing parts because Petitioner could not establish that he was the first person to work on the pump after it was sold under the facts of this case where a) Respondents conceded they had a duty to warn the first worker who serviced the pump; b) the pumps were in an identical condition to their original sale when Petitioner worked on them; c) the pumps required asbestos-containing parts and the ordinary use of the pumps degraded these parts, mandating that they be replaced; d) warnings were possible and eventually given after Petitioner was no longer working with the pumps; and e) the risk was not only insurable but, in fact, insured? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that Respondents did not owe a duty to Petitioner when neither CSA nor the trial court performed a fact-specific duty analysis of the factors under Patton v. U.S. Rugby?

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

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

Criminal Law – 1) When an appellate court holds that lesser included offenses should have been merged into the greater offense and it vacates the sentences that were merged for the lesser offenses, does the appellate court have the authority to vacate the sentence imposed for the greater offense and remand for re-sentencing for that offense where there has been no challenge on appeal to the legality of the conviction or sentence for the greater offense? 2) Did CSA have authority and/or discretion to remand this case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing after holding that several of Petitioner’s sentences should merge? 3) Is Petitioner’s concern that, on remand, his sentence may be illegally increased not ripe for review and without merit?

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

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

Family Law – 1) Does the CSA decision that a parent can be strictly liable for child abuse by mental injury by seeking medical help for her five year old based on the child’s disclosures and symptoms, absent any finding that the parent acted intentionally, recklessly, or in bad faith to cause injury, violated the Due Process Clause, Family Law Article §§ 5-701 et seq., and Taylor v. Harford County Department of Social Services, 384 Md. 213 (2004)? 2) Did Petitioner’s attorney waive Petitioner’s objections to the privileged testimony of a therapist by discussing the assertion of privilege by the child’s attorney in the collateral child custody proceeding? 3) Did the ALJ’s decision against Petitioner violate the immunity provisions of Family Law Article § 5-708 and Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-620?

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

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

Certified Question of Law from the Court of Special Appeals:

Question - Does the phrase "the total rate of tax that applies to a transfer subject to the agricultural land transfer tax" in § 13-407(a)(2) and (3) of the Tax-Property Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland include the "surcharge" imposed by § 13-303(d)?

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

Civil Procedure – 1) Did this Court’s decision in Duckett v. Riley, 428 Md. 471 (2012), deprive Petitioner of its previously-valid jury demand, even though the Duckett ruling was expressly limited to a case involving a Civil Non-Domestic Case Information Report (“CIR”) that had never been served on the opposing party and this Court expressly left open the question of whether the outcome would be different if the plaintiff had served the CIR, as Petitioner has done here? 2) Did Petitioner properly demand its constitutional right to a jury trial when the law at the time of filing its complaint recognized the validity of Petitioner having demanded a jury trial by checking the appropriate box in the CIR? 3) Did Petitioner ever voluntarily and intentionally relinquish its known constitutional right to a jury trial?

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

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

Commercial Law – Did CSA misinterpret Commercial Law Article §§ 16-201 - 209 in their conclusion that a lien and recovery company hired to execute a garageman’s lien cannot include its lien enforcement costs and expenses for executing the lien as part of the amount necessary to redeem the vehicle?

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