Court of Appeals Webcast Archive
September 2014 Oral Arguments
Oral Arguments Archives
September Term 2013 Webcasts
September Term 2012 Webcasts
September Term 2011 Webcasts
September Term 2010 Webcasts
September Term 2009 Webcasts
September Term 2008 Webcasts
September Term 2007 Webcasts
September Term 2006 Webcasts
To view the Webcast, you must have Windows
Media version 9 or higher. This FREE software can be downloaded to your computer.
Download the FREE Media Player
|September 2014 Schedule|
|09-10-2014||AG No. 33 (2013 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas Wesley Felder, II
|09-10-2014||AG No. 5 (2013 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno
|09-10-2014||No. 85 (2013 T.)||State of Maryland v. Joseph William Payne & Jason Bond
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) May a trial court allow a lay witness, without qualification as an expert, to testify about objectively verifiable facts regarding cell phone towers that do not involve the witness forming any opinion or drawing any inference or conclusion? 2) Did CSA err in ruling that wiretap statements made by Respondent Bond but not Respondent Payne were nevertheless admissible against Payne as statements by a party-opponent?
|09-10-2014||No. 4||Deborah Hiob, et al. v. Progressive American Insurance Company, et al.
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a partial voluntary dismissal can constitute an appropriate “separate document” for the purpose of Maryland Rule 2-601 even though that document is not signed by the clerk or the court? 2) Whether judgment was entered on the date the clerk entered the court’s order entering judgment and whether the notice of appeal filed prior to that docket entry is a premature appeal saved by the provisions of Rule 8-602(d)?
|09-09-2014||AG No. 73 (2012 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Mua Kum
|09-09-2014||AG No. 72 (2012 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Scott Gregory Adams
|09-09-2014||No. 2||John S. Burson, et al. v. Jeffrey G. Capps
Issues – Financial Institutions – 1) Whether a Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”) Notice of Rescission can be effective to cancel a loan transaction that has not yet taken place, and remain effective despite the issuing party’s subsequent acceptance of the benefits of the transaction? 2) Whether a TILA action filed in December 2009 on the basis of a Notice of Rescission issued in April 2007 was untimely as beyond the one-year statute of limitation in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)? 3) Whether rescission is an available remedy when the trial court has no jurisdiction over either the original lender or its assignee because all claims against both have been dismissed, with no appeal taken from that dismissal?
|09-04-2014||AG No. 10 (2013 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Daun Robert Weiers
|09-04-2014||AG No. 36 (2013 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jason Robin Gelb
|09-04-2014||AG No. 16 (2013 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ronald Claude Brigerman, Jr.
|09-04-2014||No. 99 (2013 T.)||Luther Gales, III v. Sunoco, Inc. and American Zurich Insurance
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Are Appellants in a de novo workers’ compensation appeal required to admit into evidence the award from which the appeal was taken as an element of their burden of proof?
|09-03-2014||AG No. 81 (2013 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Donald Saunders Litman|
|09-03-2014||AG No. 25 (2013 T.)
||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christine Boco Gage-Cohen
|09-03-2014||AG No. 49 (2013 T.)
||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Floyd Reynard Blair
||State of Maryland v. Jonathan Johnson
Issue – Criminal Law – Is a “suggestion” by the defendant that the victim’s mental health records may contain information that is either exculpatory or relating to the victim’s “propensity for veracity,” not sufficient, under Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md. 112 (1995), to “call for an in camera review” of those records?
|09-03-2014||No. 97 (2013 T.)
||Gregory Howard v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in refusing Petitioner’s request for a postponement without sending the matter to the administrative judge or its designee? 2) Did the trial court fail to make the necessary inquiry regarding Petitioner’s request for counsel before denying the request for a postponement? 3) Did the trial court err in finding that Petitioner’s waiver of counsel resulted in a concomitant waiver of the right to discovery? 4) Was Petitioner deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial?