PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2010

 

Denied August 15, 2011

Aevelo, Juan L. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 160
Alvarado, Ramon Alberto v. State - Pet. Docket No. 146 and cross-petition.
Andrews, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 163
Barba, John E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 25 (motion for reconsideration).
Byrd v. Attorney Grievance Commission - Pet. Docket No. 150
Carter, Craig Lamar v. State - Pet. Docket No. 158
Carter, Michael Wade v. State - Pet. Docket No. 88
Coates, Romano v. State - Pet. Docket No. 144
Cuppett v. McGibney - Pet. Docket No. 147
Gibson v. Haulsee - Pet. Docket No. 122
Gimble, Justin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 164
Grandison, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 155
Grant v. Schade - Pet. Docket No. 166
Harrison, William I. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 134 and cross-petition.
In Re: Na'Imah S. - Pet. Docket No. 113
Johnson, Donnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 143
Kerpelman v. McDonald's - Pet. Docket No. 92
Martin v. Navy Federal - Pet. Docket No. 142
Moskowitz v. Moskowitz - Pet. Docket No. 153
Peck v. Peck - Pet. Docket No. 157
Rainey, J. Reuben v. State - Pet. Docket No. 165
Roberts, Aaron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 159
Scott v. Dept. of Health - Pet. Docket No. 133
Senez v. Collins - Pet. Docket No. 152
Serrano, Nicolas S. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 86
Sheppard-Jefferson v. MIA - Pet. Docket No. 169
Sisson v. Sisson - Pet. Docket No. 151
Sisson v. Sisson - Pet. Docket No. 207
Stitt v. Saybrooke - Pet. Docket No. 148
Taylor, Dontanyon Tyrie v. State - Pet. Docket No. 156
Washington, Michael D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 188
Woods, Robert D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 141

Granted August 12, 2011

Dulyx, Leon v. State - Case No. 54, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER’S MOTIVE TO EXAMINE THE SOLE EYEWITNESS AGAINST HIM AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING CONCERNING POLICE CONDUCT DURING A PHOTOGRAPHIC ARRAY IDENTIFICATION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO PETITIONER’S MOTIVE TO DO SO AT TRIAL? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER WAS GIVEN A “FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY” TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS DESPITE THE SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATIONS PLACED ON PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO QUESTION HIM?

Green, Carlton M., Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter L. Green, et al. - Case No. 57, September Term 2011. (Petition and cross-petition granted).

ISSUES - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - (1) AS A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, WHAT ARE “ENFORCEABLE CLAIMS” IN ET SEC. 1-101(n) (renumbered 1-101(p)) AND WHAT ENFORCEABLE CLAIMS ARE TO BE PROPERLY DEDUCTED IN CALCULATING THE NET ESTATE FOR THE ELECTIVE SHARE IN THIS CASE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE ELECTIVE SHARE IS ENTITLED TO INCOME? (3) DOES THE PRINCIPAL & INCOME ACT APPLY TO THE ELECTIVE SHARE? (4) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY ALLOWING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CLAIMS TO BE DEDUCTED TWICE WHEN CALCULATING THE “NET ESTATE” FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE WIDOWED SPOUSE’S STATUTORY SHARE?

Maddox, Bonnie L. v. Edward C. Cohn, et al. - Case No. 55, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - FORECLOSURE - (1) MAY A SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE UNDER A DEED OF TRUST FILED FOR FORECLOSURE REQUIRE THAT IN ORDER TO BID ON THE PROPERTY AT THE SALE, THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AGREE TO PAY TO THE SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE’S ATTORNEY A STIPULATED FEE OSTENSIBLY FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS? (2) CAN A FORECLOSURE SALE BE “PROPERLY MADE” IF THE SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE IMPOSES AN IMPROPER CONDITION ON THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER? (3) IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE DEFENDANT/MORTGAGOR TO PROVE THAT PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS WERE DISCOURAGED FROM ATTENDING THE SALE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SALE WAS NOT “FAIRLY & PROPERLY” MADE? (4) IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF DIFFERENT WHEN A SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING FORECLOSURE SALES AS OPPOSED TO WHEN SOMEONE IMPOSES REQUIREMENTS OR CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE RULES & WHICH ARE IMPROPER?

Phillips, Charles Robert v. State - Case No. 58, September Term, 2011. (Petition and cross-petition granted).

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINE THAT LT. MCDERMOTT’S STATEMENTS TO PETITIONER WERE NOT THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF INTERROGATION WHERE AFTER PETITIONER INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, MCDERMOTT IMMEDIATELY CEASED ANY QUESTIONING & INFORMED PETITIONER THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT TALK TO HIM FURTHER BUT THAT PETITIONER COULD CHANGE HIS MIND, THAT PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HIS SIDE OF THE STORY AND THAT IF PETITIONER DID CHANGE HIS MIND HE WOULD HAVE TO REAFFIRM THAT HE DID NOT WANT COUNSEL? (2) WAS ANY ERROR IN THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S SUPPRESSION MOTION HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHERE PETITIONER’S STATEMENT TO POLICE PROVIDED THE ONLY EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR PETITIONER’S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE/ACCIDENT & WHERE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE APART FROM THE STATEMENT ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONER BRUTALLY MURDERED THE ELDERLY VICTIM? (3) DID PETITIONER FAIL TO PRESERVE HIS CURRENT CLAIM THAT LT. MCDERMOTT’S STATEMENTS TELLING HIM THAT HE COULD REINITIATE CONVERSATION WITH THE POLICE WERE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF INTERROGATION WHERE THE TERMS “FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF INTERROGATION” WERE NOT MENTIONED AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING & WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT DISPUTE THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THAT PETITIONER REINITIATED THE CONVERSATION?

Potomac Abatement, Inc., et al. v. Edy Sanchez - Case No. 56, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN, IN A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, IT HELD CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE & LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF MD. CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL. SEC. 9-742 THAT THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION MAY RETAIN JURISDICTION WHILE A PRIOR ORDER IS PENDING ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MD. CODE ANN., LAB & EMPL. SEC. 9-736?

State v. Nicholas Serrano - Case No. 52, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE STATE’S INTENTION TO SEEK LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE WHERE THE STATE TIMELY FILED THAT NOTICE PRIOR TO RESPONDENT’S FIRST TRIAL AND WHERE RESPONDENT’S SECOND TRIAL WAS THE SAME UNIT OF PROSECUTION INSOFAR AS IT SEAMLESSLY FOLLOWED THE MISTRIAL ANNOUNCED IN RESPONDENT’S FIRST TRIAL?

Tracey, Dorothy M. v. Anthony K. Solesky and Irene Solesky, as the Parents, Guardians and Next Friends of Dominic Solesky, a minor. - Case No.53, September Term 2011. (Petition and cross-petition granted).

ISSUES - (1) IS THE HARBORING OF AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIERS (PIT BULLS) BY TENANTS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY FOR WHICH LANDLORDS MAY BE HELD STRICTLY LIABLE? (2) DOES MD JURISPRUDENCE PERMIT AN INFERENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF PRIOR VICIOUS PROPENSITIES OF A DOMESTIC ANIMAL BY A LANDLORD (A) WHOSE TENANT HARBORS THE ANIMAL IN LEASED PREMISES BASED UPON SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE ANIMAL’S TEMPERAMENT OF NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE MADE LIMITED OBSERVATIONS OF THE ANIMAL’S BEHAVIOR WHICH WERE NEVER CONVEYED TO THE LANDLORD? AND (B) BASED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXCULPATORY CLAUSE IN A RESIDENTIAL LEASE CONCERNING BODILY INJURY CAUSED BY THE TENANT’S PETS? (3) MAY A LANDLORD BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY A TENANT’S DOMESTIC ANIMAL DUE TO THE FAILURE TO REQUIRE REASONABLE CONFINEMENT OF A DOMESTIC ANIMAL IN THE LEASED PREMISES WHEN THE ANIMAL ESCAPES THE PREMISES BY A MEANS WHICH THE LANDLORD HAD NO REASONABLE BASIS TO FORESEE? (4) AFTER SHIELDS AND MATTHEWS WAS THE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS/VICIOUS NATURE OF PIT BULLS KNOWN TO MARYLAND LANDLORDS? (5) DID MATTHEWS IMPOSE A DUTY UPON LANDLORDS WHO RENT TO TENANTS WITH PIT BULLS IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO ACT WITH REASONABLE CARE IN REQUIRING APPROPRIATE HOUSING OR STORAGE OF THE TWO PIT BULLS WHEN OUTSIDE THE HOUSE?