SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2013
Thursday, December 5, 2013:
AG No. 4 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Nikolaos Panagiotis Kourtesis
Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Robert N. Levin
No. 37 Tyrone Bryant v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Is a claim that the State failed to present sufficient evidence for the imposition of a subsequent offender sentence reviewable on appeal as a challenge to an illegal sentence or, in the alternative, the judgment of the trial court under Rule 8-131(c)? 2) Did the trial court err in imposing an enhanced sentence of 25 years without parole where the State failed to prove that the predicate convictions belonged to Petitioner?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Susannah E. Prucka
No. 33 Ronald Alexander Hobby v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft over $100,000 or at any level? 2) Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to sustain a conviction for burglary?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Braudes
Attorney for Respondent: Gary O'Connor
No. 36 Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury
Future Value, Inc., v. Comptroller of the Treasury
Issues - Taxation - 1) Did CSA err in applying a unitary business standard to establish a nexus between taxpayers and the State in a situation where patent royalties and interest paid by a parent corporation to its wholly-owned subsidiaries are claimed as business expenses in Maryland? 2) Did CSA misinterpret this Court's opinions about “economic substance” and understand it as a synonym for the unitary business principle? 3) Did CSA lower the showing required to disregard the corporate form by holding that a subsidiary is, in effect, a division of the parent, doing business everywhere the parent does business? 5) Did CSA err in holding that a MD regulation regarding the apportionment of tax liability for multi-state corporations was inapplicable to the situation at hand? 6) Did CSA err in defining the “use” of a patent to include the manufacture or sale of a product by a patent licensee?
Attorney for Petitioner: Robert F. Reklaitis
Attorney for Respondent: Michael J. Salem
No. 43 Marshall Thompkins, et ux. v. Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc., et al.
Issues - Commercial Law - 1) Is an assignee of a secondary mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of Com. Law Art., § 3-306, which provides that a person taking an instrument, other than a person having the rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a possessory or property right in the instrument or its proceeds? 2) Is an assignee of a secondary mortgage subject to the SMLL claims that could be raised by the borrower against the originating lender by operation of MD common law?
Attorneys for Petitioner: E. David Hoskins and Max F. Brauer
Attorney for Respondent:Gerard F. Miles, Sr.
No. 44 Konstantinos Karanikas v. Rachel Cartwright
Issue - Family Law - Did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining whether, how, and to what extent to permit the parties' daughter's testimony to be elicited?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kelly A. Powers
Attorney for Respondent: Stephen D. Krohn
AG No. 6 (2012 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Ron Worthy
Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk
Attorney for Respondent: William C. Brennan
No. 34 Delford Mitchell Barnes v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) When search and seizure warrants for DNA and fingerprints have been fully executed, is the individual's continued detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment in the absence of probable cause to arrest or is the continued detention justified by reasonable suspicion that the person committed the crime under investigation? 2) Was the detention of Petitioner justified under the applicable standard? 3) When an individual has been transported to a police station in order to execute a search of the person, is it reasonable for police to prolong the detention by delaying execution of that search warrant pending a search of the individual's residence? 4) Was Petitioner's detention prior to the execution of the DNA and fingerprint warrants reasonable? 5) Is the Fourth Amendment unlawful detention argument preserved for appellate review when Petitioner's brief before CSA argued only that the continued detention rendered his subsequent consent to search involuntary?
Attorney for Petitioner: Julie M. Reamy
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams
No. 38 Daniel Joseph Dodge v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court err in admitting the statements the victim made to a registered nurse in a hospital during a sexual assault forensic examination under Rule 5-803(b)(4) (“statements in contemplation of medical diagnosis or treatment”) based on the totality of the circumstances? 2) Did Petitioner preserve this argument for review where the grounds for the claim given at trial were different than those advanced on appeal? 3) Did the trial court err in excluding impeachment evidence that the victim had dreamed about, or could not remember, a sexual incident unrelated to this case?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Thomas M. Donnelly and Bennett J. Wills
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss
AG No. 5 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno
Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Howard Cardin
AG No. 38 (2012 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Mark McDonald
Attorneys for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless and Glenn M. Grossman
Attorney for Respondent: David G. Whitworth
No. 39 Thaddus Roberts v. Montgomery County, Maryland
Issues - Workers' Compensation - 1) Did CSA err in upholding the denial of workers' compensation to Petitioner, when he was involved in a car accident while on duty, being paid, and traveling between an employer-encouraged physical training session and his place of employment? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the “going and coming” rule bars Petitioner entitlement to workers' compensation benefits? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the denial of workers' compensation to Petitioner where its decision was premised on facts not contained in the record?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kenneth M. Berman
Attorney for Respondent: Wendy Karpel
No. 35 Dwayne Scriber v. State of Maryland
Issue - Transportation Law - Did the lower court err in denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss charges of fleeing and eluding under Trans. Art. § 21-904 based on double jeopardy where the District Court had previously acquitted him of willfully disobeying a lawful order or direction of a police officer under Trans. Art. § 21-103(a)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian M. Saccenti
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin A. Harris
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After December 10, 2013 the Court will recess until January 9, 2014.
BESSIE M. DECKER