PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2007
Denied August 26, 2008
Baltimore County v. Prison Health - Pet. Docket No. 216*
Barone, David William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 280* (motion for reconsideration)
Bellamy, Reginald Wade v. State - Pet. Docket No. 201*
Bernstein v. Bernstein - Pet. Docket No. 175*
Blannon, Walter James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 220*
Boyd v. New Towne - Pet. Docket No. 194*
Brown, Andre v. State - Pet. Docket No. 190*
Clark v. O'Malley - Pet. Docket No. 262*
DeShields, William Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 84* (motion for reconsideration)
Diller v. Diller - Pet. Docket No. 219*
Eddy v. Giant - Pet. Docket No. 181*
Eley v. Housing Authority - Pet. Docket No. 209*
Evans, Joseph Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 7* (motion for reconsideration)
Faulkner, Donte v. State - Pet. Docket No. 192*
Friedman v. MIA - Pet. Docket No. 215*
Fuller, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 130*
Geppert v. Joyner - Pet. Docket No. 227*
Hill-Bey, Terry S. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 206 *
Hudson v. B&G Foods - Pet. Docket No. 208*
In ReL Victoria S. - Pet. Docket No. 223*
Johnson, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 224*
Kershaw v. Mosley - Pet. Docket No. 172*
Kok Song Fong v. Montgomery Sports - Pet. Docket No. 176*
Kolb v. Heavner - Pet. Docket No. 81*
Lazvovskaia v. Alekseyev - Pet. Docket No. 188*
Longinotti v. Longinotti - Pet. Docket No. 202*
Manzari, Alfred A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 212*
Mathis, George Woodrow v. State - Pet. Docket No. 204*
Allied Technology v. Matturro - Pet. Docket No. 222* and cross-petition
McClain v. Frederick County Commissioners - Pet. Docket No. 187*
Papdilla, Louis Charles v. State - Pet. Docket No. 198*
Phillips v. Liberty Mutual - Pet. Docket No. 177*
Reaves, Tyron R. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 218*
Rosemond, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 149*
Sell v. Bargar - Pet. Docket No. 225*
Simard v. Tri-State Home - Pet. Docket No. 221*
State v. Tavon D. Collins - Pet. Docket No. 178*
Tankersley v. Rennie-Tankersley - Pet. Docket No. 256*
Taylor, Ameer Seif v. State - Pet. Docket No. 173*
Warrick, Rick G. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 214 *
Watson, Ricardo v. State - Pet. Docket No. 189* and cross-petition
Windle, William F. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 61*
* September Term 2008
Granted August 22, 2008
Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General, et al. v. Joseph V. Buinassissi, Substitute Trustees, et al. - Case No. 62. September Term 2008.
ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING THE DIVISION’S INTERVENTION IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHERE THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY COULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE DIVISION’S ABILITY TO OBTAIN STATUTORILY-AUTHORIZED RELIEF IN A SEPARATE ACTION?
Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Zebulon J. Brodie - Case No. 63, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - MAY A COURT BREACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SPEAK ANONYMOUSLY AND ORDER THE IDENTIFICATION OF INTERNET SPEAKERS WHO ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS WITHOUT A FACTUAL AND LEGAL SHOWING THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS A SUPPORTABLE CLAIM ON THE MERITS?
State of Maryland v. Christopher Carl Sullivan - Case No. 64, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHERE APPELLEE’S MVA RECORDS SHOWED THAT HE HAD BEEN “REVOKED” AND “SUSPENDED” AND HE HAD ACCUMULATED 15 POINTS, DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT APPELLEE COULD NOT BE CONVICTED OF DRIVING AFTER REVOCATION OF HIS DRIVING PRIVILEGE UNDER SECTION 16-303(d) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE?
Robert Harris v. State of Maryland - Case No. 65, September Term 2008. (Petition and Crossp-Petition).
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHERE THE LOWER COURT FOUND A BRADY DISCLOSURE VIOLATION WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO PETITIONER’S TRIAL COUNSEL WHAT POSITION THE PROSECUTOR HAD AGREED TO TAKE AT THE HEARINGS ON THE MOTIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE FILED BY THE TWO KEY WITNESSES AGAINST PETITIONER, DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THOSE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT MATERIAL?
Ernest James McDowell v. State of Maryland - Case No. 66, September Term 2008.
ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE POLICE OFFICER’S ACTION IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO REMOVE A GYM BAG FROM HIS VEHICLE AND OPEN IT CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE WARRANTLESS SEARCH? (2) WAS THE SEARCH OF PETITIONER’S GYM BAG UNREASONABLE WHEN ITS CHARACTERISTICS COULD HAVE PERMITTED A PAT-DOWN TO DETERMINE IF A WEAPON WAS INSIDE?
John R. Boer, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy C. Faya v. University Specialty Hospital - Case No. 67, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - WAS THE RESPONDENT, WHO HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, PERMITTED UNDER ESTATES & TRUSTS SECTION 8-104(c) TO FILE A CLAIM IN A COUNTY WHERE THE DECEDENT RESIDED ON HER DATE OF DEATH, APART FROM HER DOMICILE, PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF HER ESTATE IN HER COUNTY OF DOMICILE?
John D. Gibson v. Jessica L. Welsh - Case No. 68, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - NEGLIGENCE - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT PURSUANT TO MD TRANSPORTATION CODE ANN. SECTION 21-1105(d), BY INTERPRETING THE STATUTE TO PROHIBIT A PERSON SEATED IN A PARKED CAR FROM OPENING THE CAR’S DOOR “TWO CENTIMETERS” WHILE WAITING FOR CARS TO PASS BY BEFORE EXITING THE VEHICLE?
Board of Education of Baltimore City v. Mireille Zimmer-Rubert - Case No. 69, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - STATUTORY - WHETHER THE STATE OF MARYLAND, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-105 OF THE EDUCATION ARTICLE AND SECTION 5-518(c) OF THE COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARTICLE ENACTED A VALID WAIVER OF ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY?
In Re: Julianna B. - Case No. 70, September Term 2008. (Petition and Cross-Petition).
ISSUES - JUVENILE - (1) SHOULD JULIANNA B.’S APPEAL BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE JUVENILE COURT’S CONTINUED COMMITMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ORDER DENYING JULIANNA B.’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF HER DISPOSITION IS NOT A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT, WHEN ISSUING ITS ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE SERVICES FROM IMPLEMENTING THE TREATMENT SERVICE PLAN THE JUVENILE COURT HAD ADOPTED AT THE DISPOSITION HEARING, THE JUVENILE COURT DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR THE JUVENILE CAUSES ACT?
Vincent R. Jones v. State of Maryland - Case No. 71, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE PETITIONER’S CONVICTIONS FOR CONSPIRING WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND TO POSSESS HEROIN AND COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, WHERE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL ESTABLISHED NOTHING MORE THAN THE MERE FACT THAT THE GIRLFRIEND HAD HER NAME ON THE LEASE, LIVED IN THE RESIDENCE WITH THE PETITIONER, AND WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED?
Catherine L. Reiter, et al. v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, et al. - Case No. 72, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT DIRECT EVIDENCE OF EXPOSURE TO RESPONDENTS’ ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS ARE REQUIRE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT RESPONDENTS’ PRODUCTS CAUSED PETITIONERS’ ASBESTOS-RELATED INJURIES?
State of Maryland v. Michael Reheem Duran - Case No. 73, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT THE CRIME OF INDECENT EXPOSURE IS NOT ONE OF THE CRIMES ENUMERATED BY STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES REGISTRATION AS A SEX OFFENDER AND WAS THE COURT CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT REGISTRATION AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ONE OF THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE?
Jovan Brian Lancaster v. State of Maryland - Case No. 74, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID PETITIONER WAIVE ANY COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER WHEN HE AGREED TO THE COURSE OF ACTION PROPOSED BY THE LOWER COURT AND MADE NO FURTHER OBJECTION TO THE ORDER AFTER THE HEARING, EITHER PRIOR TO TRIAL OR DURING TRIAL?
State of Maryland v. Marvin Williamson - Case No. 75, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES SECTION 7-103(b)(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE, WHICH PRECLUDES THE FILING OF A POST-CONVICTION PETITION “MORE THAN 10 YEARS AFTER THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED,” APPLY IN THIS CASE WHERE RESPONDENT WAS SENTENCED IN 1968 AND PETITION WAS FILED IN 2007, ALMOST 40 YEARS AFTER WILLIAMSON’S CONVICTION AND 12 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TEN YEAR LIMITATION SET FORTH IN SECTION 7-103(b)(1)?
Joseph Sheppard Rogers, Trustee v. P-M Hunter's Ridge, LLC, et al. - Case No. 76, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT A CONSTRUCTED ROADWAY EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED AS PERMANENT MAY NONETHELESS BE DESTROYED AND RELOCATED PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF A DEED?
Lanay Brown v. The Daniel Realty Company, et al. - Case No. 77, September Term 2008.
ISSUE - LEAD PAINT EXPOSURE - IF A WITNESS WAS A PARTY TO A CASE AT THE TIME THE WITNESS’ DEPOSITION WAS OBTAINED, BUT NOT A PARTY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, IS IT PROPER FOR A TRIAL COURT TO PERMIT A PARTY TO READ PORTIONS OF THAT DEPOSITION INTO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 2-419(a)(2) EVEN THOUGH THE WITNESS IS NO LONGER A PARTY TO THE CASE AND NOT UNAVAILABLE?
Denied August 14, 2008
Stouffer v. Reid - Pet. Docket No. 294*
* September Term 2008
Granted August 11, 2008
Jane Doe, et al. v. Montgomery County Board of Elections - Case No. 61, September Term 2008. (Petition and Cross-Petition).
ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN RULING THAT A VOTER CHALLENGE TO CERTIFICATION OF A REFERENDUM PETITION THAT FAILED TO CARRY THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES, WHICH CHALLENGE WAS FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE CERTIFICATION, IS NONETHELESS PARTIALLY TIME-BARRED? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE INACTIVE VOTERS IN CALCULATING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY?