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
072 AG
2012 Attorney Grievance Adams   2014-09-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
014 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Worsham   2014-10-02
[Oral Arguments]

2014-10-03
[PC Order]

2014-12-23
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
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

061 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Hodes   2014-10-07
[Oral Arguments]

2014-10-07
[PC Order]

2014-12-23
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
003 Misc.
2014 Application of T. Z.-A. O. for Admission to the Bar of Md.     2014-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
2014-12-22
[Opinion]
Show cause
007 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Mixter   2014-11-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
023
2014 Oglesby State 2014-01-24 2014-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Pursuant to the rule of lenity, was Appellant required to be sentenced for possession of a firearm pursuant to Crim. Law Art., § 5-622, one of the two statutes punishing the conduct for which he was sentenced, because it prescribed a more lenient sentence than that mandated by the statute, Public Safety Art., § 5-133, under which he was sentenced?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 197, Sept. Term, 2013 (bypass)

026
2014 Kelly Duvall 2014-02-21 2014-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
2015-01-27
[Opinion]

Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the lower court err in construing the Will in a manner inconsistent with Md. Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 4-401 and finding that it imposed survivorship as a condition precedent to inheritance under the Will? 2) Did the lower court err in construing the Will as demonstrating the Testatrix’s contrary intent sufficient to overcome the presumption that § 4-403 (2013) (the “anti-lapse” statute) applies?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1688, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

022
2014 Simpson State 2014-01-24 2014-11-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does the State violate a criminal defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when a prosecutor repeatedly and over objection assures the jury in opening statement that the defendant “will tell you” that he committed the alleged offenses? 2) Does a trial court commit reversible error when it allows the State to offer opinion testimony from a law enforcement officer concerning his canine partner’s alleged detection of an accelerant without requiring the State to name the officer as an expert prior to trial or to qualify the officer as an expert at trial? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a police officer may not testify as to the significance of an accelerant-detecting dog’s actions unless that officer is first qualified and accepted as an expert pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2833, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

003 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Smith   2014-11-10
[Oral Arguments]

  Attorney disciplinary matter
021
2014 People's Insurance Counsel Div. State Farm Fire & Casualty 2014-01-24 2014-11-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Insurance Law – 1) Should this Court reexamine Maryland common law on construing insurance contracts and, recognizing that such contracts are not the product of equal bargaining, hold that terms contained in an insurance policy must be strictly construed against the insurer? 2) Did the Commissioner err in allowing State Farm to deny coverage for damage to a collapsed carport under a policy that insured against “the sudden, entire collapse of a building” based on a restrictive definition of the term “building” that does not appear in the insurance policy or any other written document, and is based only on oral instructions given to a catastrophe claims adjuster when she was dispatched to handle claims following a severe snowstorm?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1353, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

025
2014 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300 & McClure Lovelace 2014-02-21 2014-11-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Labor & Employment – Is an internal union remedy “inadequate” under Md. common law if it does not allow for the monetary damages that the plaintiff seeks in court?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1020, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

019
2014 Rounds M-NCPPC 2013-12-20 2014-11-12
[Oral Arguments]
2015-01-29
[Opinion]

Local Government – 1) Whether parties seeking redress from alleged government violations of the Constitution should be required to adhere to the strict notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the severe remedy of dismissal for an alleged failure to join necessary parties, despite the Complaint’s assertion that non-defendant neighbors did not oppose action? 3) Did CSA err in its factual determination that Petitioners failed to file this cause of action within the statute of limitations?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 889, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

032 & 046 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Green   2014-11-12
[Oral Arguments]
2014-12-22
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
027
2014 Cunningham Feinberg 2014-02-21 2014-11-12
[Oral Arguments]
2015-01-27
[Opinion]

Labor & Employment – 1) Does application of the Md. choice of law principle of lex loci contractus preclude a claim under the Md. Wage Payment and Collection Law (MD. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (“MWPCL”))? 2) Does proper application of lex loci contractus preclude respondent’s MWPCL claim?

Circuit Court for Montgomery Co., No. 8778D

012 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Buehler   2014-12-05
[Oral Arguments]

2014-12-11
[PC Order]

2015-01-26
[Opinion]

Attorney disciplinary matter
083 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Shapiro   2014-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
2015-01-30
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
029
2014 Anne Arundel Co. Bell 2014-03-21 2014-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether noise from a predicted increase in traffic constitutes “special damages”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 273, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

028
2014 State Callahan 2014-03-21 2014-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the lower court violated the doctrine of the separation of powers in finding respondent in violation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with a lawful order of his probation agent where the order was a requirement of his mandatory parole release conditions? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the lower court erred in revoking Callahan’s probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2365, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

001 Misc.
2014 Antonio SSA Security  

2014-12-08
[Oral Arguments]

 

Certified question of Law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?

031
2014 Metro Maint. Sys. South Milburn 2014-03-21 2014-12-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in its decision that the lower court’s remand order was not a “final judgment” as defined by CJP § 12-301? 2) Did the lower court act arbitrarily and capriciously in remanding a final administrative decision to the processes of an administrative agency without conducting any record review and without any finding of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, cognizable defect, intervening factors or subsequent events? 3) Did CSA properly decide Anne Arundel County v. Rode, 214 Md.App. 702 (2013), and properly apply that ruling to the procedural circumstances in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2367, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

086 AG,
013 AG,
057 AG
2014
2013
2013
Attorney Grievance Barton   2014-12-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
030
2014 Falls Garden Condo. Falls HOA 2014-03-21

2014-12-09
[Oral Arguments]

2015-01-27
[Opinion]

Civil Procedure – 1) Whether it was error to enforce the Letter of Intent given the parties never intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent and the Letter of Intent does not contain all material terms? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to hold a full plenary hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement since the existence of a binding and enforceable agreement was contested and there were contradicting proffers regarding a material issue, i.e. whether the parties intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 443, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

048 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Olszewski   2014-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
2015-01-27
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
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

015 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Burghardt   2015-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
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.

  Attorney disciplinary matter
040
2014 Harrison-Solomon State 2014-06-18 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.

 

Criminal Law – Where Petitioner was committed to the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene pursuant to a finding that he was not criminally responsible, was subsequently conditionally released, and did not violate any of the conditions of his release, did the circuit court have jurisdiction, after the expiration of the order of conditional release (OCR), to grant a motion to “extend” the OCR filed five days prior to its expiration?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2253, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]

035
2014 Espina Jackson 2014-05-15

2015-01-12
[Oral Arguments]

A recording of this case will be made available as soon as possible. Until that time, an audio recording is linked below.

Audio Recording

 

Constitutional Law – 1) Can the General Assembly contravene or restrict by statute self-executing rights in the state constitution? 2) Does the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA) encompass and serve to cap self-executing constitutional rights? 3) With 96.5% of the verdict stripped from the petitioners, is the application of the LGTCA damages cap to the facts here unconstitutional under Art. 19? 4) Did CSA err in applying the LGTCA cap to the constitutional deprivations here after the jury found malice and the County stipulated to scope of employment? 5) Did CSA err in holding that all wrongful death claims are reduced to one claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2044, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

031 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Butler  

2015-01-12
[Oral Arguments]

A recording of this case will be made available as soon as possible. Until that time, an audio recording is linked below.

Audio Recording

2015-01-27
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter
037
2014 Smiley State 2014-04-18 2015-01-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting the prior recorded statement of an unavailable witness after finding that Petitioner procured the witness’s unavailability at trial? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress an extrajudicial identification of Petitioner where his photograph was one of only two in a photographic array which was not visibly altered and his clothing matched the shooter’s described attire? 3) Should MD adopt, either as a matter of State constitutional or evidentiary law, a standard for evaluating the admissibility of eyewitness identifications which better reflects present scientific knowledge concerning eyewitness memory?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2237, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

038
2014 Payne Erie Insurance Exchange 2014-05-15 2015-01-12
[Oral Arguments]
 

Insurance Law – Under Maryland Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Kornke, et al., 21 Md.App. 178, 319 A.2d 603 (1974) and its progeny, did the trial court err in holding that Erie was not required to provide coverage to a second permittee using an insured’s car within the named insured’s original grant of permissive use?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 46, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

001 AG
2014 Attorney Grievance Cocco   2015-01-13
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
030 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Basinger   2015-01-13
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter
039
2014 Anne Arundel Co. Harwood Civic Ass'n 2014-06-18 2015-01-13
[Oral Arguments]
 

Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Balt., 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether CSA properly applied the “legal boundaries” standard of review to the legislative actions of the County Council? 4) Whether CSA erred in imposing the “consistency” requirement of § 1-417(b) of the Land Use Article? 5) Whether the considerations established as relevant to special aggrievement in Ray v. Mayor of Balt. apply equally to cases in which a private citizen challenges the validity of legislatively enacted comprehensive zoning? 6) Whether Land Use Article § 1-417 (enacted in 2012) required that comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 2011 be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 7) Whether the title to Chapter 674, Laws of Maryland 2013 retroactively required comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 2011 to be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 8) Whether Md. Code Ann., Art. 66B § 1.04(f) required comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 201 to be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 9) Because one element of unlawful spot zoning requires zoning that is inconsistent with the comprehensive zoning plan, can a local legislative body unlawfully spot-zone a particular property when adopting legislation that enacts into law a new comprehensive zoning plan, when all zoning included in the legislation is part of that plan?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1733, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

064 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Marcalus   2015-02-05   Attorney disciplinary matter
005 Misc.
2014 Schlossberg Bell Builders Remodeling   2015-02-05  

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

Would meeting the factors set forth in DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., 540 F.2d 681-87 (4th Cir. 1976), be sufficient to establish a paramount equity, in the absence of common law fraud, to warrant piercing the corporate veil?

051
2014 Md. Casualty Co. Blackstone Int'l. 2014-07-18 2015-02-05  

Insurance – 1) Did CSA err in holding that product packaging was “advertisement,” and that the “use of another’s advertising idea” need not be “wrongful use,” when it substituted its own definitions of those terms for the clear and unambiguous definitions contained in the Policy? 2) Did CSA err in applying this Court’s precedent requiring an insured to establish all three elements of coverage for “advertising injury” to trigger the duty to defend by concluding that the “causal relationship” element was not necessary in this case? 3) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioners waived policy exclusions as bases for denial of coverage and creating liability beyond the bounds of the Policy when, as a matter of public policy, coverage may not be expanded by waiver? 4) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioners waived policy exclusions as bases for denial of coverage when policy exclusion defenses were raised, argued and preserved in the trial court and on appeal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2302, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

048
2014 State Manion 2014-07-18 2015-02-05  

Criminal Law – Where, consistent with State v. Coleman, 423 Md. 666 (2011), the trier of fact inferred an intent to deprive from acts subsequent to the defendant’s deception, did CSA err when it drew different inferences from the same conduct and reversed the conviction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 410, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

042
2014 Sublet State 2014-06-18 2015-02-06  

Criminal Law – 1) Did the lower courts err in excluding crucial Facebook evidence on authentication grounds where the suspected author of the Facebook posts testified at trial, admitted discussing the fight on Facebook, and recognized this specific Facebook conversation, and where the posts contained numerous distinctive characteristics demonstrating authenticity? 2) In excluding Facebook evidence on authenticity grounds, did the lower courts err by applying an incorrect legal standard? 3) In assessing the Facebook evidence, did the lower courts err by not applying a correct and complete authentication analysis?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 311, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

059
2014 Harris State 2014-09-19 2015-02-06  

Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1159, Sept. Term, 2013, Pending

060
2014 Monge-Martinez State 2014-09-19 2015-02-06  

Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2270, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

045
2014 Connors Gov't Empl. Insurance Co. 2014-07-18 2015-02-09  

Insurance – Do the underinsured motorist provisions of GEICO’s insurance contract provide Petitioner a limit of underinsured coverage of $300,000 for each injured person, subject to an aggregate payment to all Petitioner’s claims by GEICO not to exceed $300,000?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 773, Sept. Term, 2011 [Opinion]
049
2014 In Re: Tyrell A.   2014-07-18 2015-02-09  

Criminal Law (Juvenile) – 1) Does the term “victim,” defined in Md. Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol) Criminal Procedure Art., §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a), as “a person who suffers death, personal injury, or property damage or loss as a direct result of a crime or delinquent act,” include an individual who sustains personal injury while voluntarily participating in the crime or delinquent act? 2) Is an individual who sustains personal injury while voluntarily participating in the common law offense of affray a “victim” within the meaning of §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a)? 3) Should the definition of “victim” in §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a) be given a different interpretation in juvenile delinquency cases than in criminal cases? 4) Did the trial court lack authority to order Petitioner to make restitution in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1250, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

050
2014 State Department of Assessments & Taxation Andrecs 2014-07-18 2015-02-09  

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

044
2014 Baltimore Co. Thiergartner 2014-07-18 2015-02-10  

Labor & Employment – 1) Is the County entitled to a complete offset of workers’ compensation benefits due to Respondent’s election and receipt of a lump sum retirement benefit payment under the County’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) until such time as that DROP payment is fully accounted for by operation of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-503? 2) What methodology is correct for calculation of the County’s offset of workers’ compensation benefits to effectuate the legislative purpose of § 9-503 where Respondent has elected and received a lump sum payment of retirement benefits under DROP?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2053, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

058
2014 Walters Baltimore Co. 2014-08-27 2015-02-10  

Workers’ Compensation – 1) Is the County entitled to a complete offset of workers’ compensation benefits due to appellant’s election and receipt of a lump sum retirement benefit payment under the County’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) until such time as that DROP payment is fully accounted for by operation of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl., § 9-503? 2) What methodology is correct for calculation of the County’s offset of workers’ compensation benefits to effectuate the legislative purpose of § 9-503 where appellant has elected and received a lump sum payment of retirement benefits under DROP?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1542, Sept. Term, 2013, Pending

041
2014 Garner State 2014-06-18 2015-02-10  

Criminal Law – 1) Are separate consecutive sentences for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence prohibited when a single handgun is used in committing two crimes against a single victim in one transaction? 2) Where CSA correctly determined that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, but failed to correct that illegal sentence, should this Court correct the illegal nature of the sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2722, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

085 AG
2013 Attorney Grievance Wray   2015-03-06   Attorney disciplinary matter
064
2014 Prince George's Co. Zimmer Development Co. 2014-09-19 2015-03-06  

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]

053
2014 State Johnson 2014-08-27 2015-03-06  

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in merging both the kidnapping and robbery sentences into the felony murder sentence, rather than merging only one of them?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2766, Sept. Term, 2011, Unreported

063
2014 Bonilla State 2014-09-19 2015-03-09  

Criminal Law – Did CSA err by affirming the trial court’s judgment that a sentence below a binding plea agreement constitutes an illegal sentence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 508, Sept. Term, 2012 [Opinion]

057
2014 Board of Public Works K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons 2014-08-27 2015-03-09  

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)

052
2014 Woznicki Geico Gen. Insurance Co. 2014-08-27 2015-03-09  

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  

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  

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]

062
2014 Hailes State 2014-09-19 2015-03-10  

Criminal Law – 1) Does C.J.P. § 12-302, which authorizes an appeal by the State from “a decision of a trial court that excludes evidence offered by the State … alleged to have been seized in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Maryland Constitution, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights,” permit an appeal from the pretrial exclusion of evidence where the evidence was not seized and the constitutional violation will occur only if the State introduces the evidence at trial? 2) Did the victim’s statement of identification constitute a dying declaration where the victim made the statement four days after he was injured, two days after he was told that it would be unlikely if he lived for more than 24 hours, and two years before he died? 3) Does the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation bar the admission of the evidence in this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2384, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

004 Misc.
2014 State G&C Gulf   2015-03-11  

Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Whether there is a justiciable controversy between the parties? 2) Whether Md. Code Ann., Transp. (1977, 2012 Repl. Vol., 2013 Supp.)("Transp.") §§ 21-10A-04(a)(3) and 21-10A-04(a)(4) are arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; and, if so, whether Transp. §§ 21-10A-04(a)(3) and 21-10A-04(a)(4) are severable? 3) Whether Transp. § 21-10A-04(a)(7) is void for vagueness and, thus, unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, if so, whether Transp. § 21-10A-04(a)(7) is severable?

056
2014 State Yancey 2014-08-27 2015-03-11  

Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly find reversible error where the trial court, after denying the defendant’s request to approach the bench during voir dire examination of two potential jurors, only one of whom was selected to serve on the jury, stated that defense counsel could consult with Yancey before any decision regarding whether to strike a juror was made and found explicitly credible the seated juror’s testimony that she could be “fair and impartial”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1577, Sept. Term, 2013, Unreported

046
2014 Wicomico Co. Dept. of Social Serv's B.A. 2014-07-18 2015-03-11  

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

086 AG
2009 Attorney Grievance Eckel   2015-04-01   Attorney disciplinary matter
069
2014 WSSC LaFarge North America 2014-09-19 2015-04-01  

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 2014-04-01  

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

002 Misc.
2014 Patriot Elec. & Mech. Mfrs. & Traders Trust   2015-04-07  

Certified Question from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland

Questions - 1) Is a financing statement that does not contain the debtor's correct name and is not discoverable by searching for the debtor's correct name within the filing office records by utilizing the Search Logic promulgated by SDAT, but is otherwise discoverable if a searcher of the filing office records submits the correct beginning of the debtor's name utilizing the Search Logic, seriously misleading within the meaning of Sections 9-502(a)(1), 9-503(a)(1) and 9-506 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Commercial Law Article? 2) How should the Search Logic instruction that requires a searcher to enter "as much or as little of the [debtor's] name [as the searcher] is certain of" be construed in the case of Section 544(a)'s hypthetical lien creditor who is statutorily mandated to be "without knowledge"?

066
2014 Breeding Konte 2014-09-19 2015-04-07  

Real Property – 1) Does the “woodlands exception” apply to cases involving adverse possession as well as those involving prescription? 2) If the “woodlands exception” applies to adverse possession cases, does it apply to the facts of this case? 3) Assuming, arguendo, the “woodlands exception” does apply and the use of the property was initially permissive, did there come a time when the character of the use changed and became adverse?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2114, Sept. Term, 2012, Unreported

072
2014 State Hunt 2014-10-21 2015-04-07  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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

076
2014 Thompson UBS Financial Servs. 2014-10-21 2015-04-09  

Torts – 1) Should this Court adopt RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 242(2) and, in doing so, find that CSA erred in reversing the jury verdict for petitioners on conversion? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the jury verdict for petitioners on constructive fraud?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 352, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]