|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND SCHEDULE
Thursday, April 5, 2007: Bar Admissions No. 84 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. John Donahue ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - IN AN EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WAS THE EMPLOYEE, UNDER STATE REGULATIONS, "UNAVAILABLE" TO MEET WITH SUPERIORS WHEN HE DID NOT RESPOND TO MANAGEMENT'S EFFORTS TO CONTACT HIM? Attorney for Appellant: Michele J. McDonald No. 83 Garfield George Patterson v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS A WARRANT ISSUED FOR THE SEARCH OF A MOTEL ROOM 34 DAYS AFTER DEFENDANT'S ARREST ON TRAFFIC CHARGES BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE? Attorney for Appellant: Stacy W. McCormack No. 115 Educational Testing Service v. Elba Hildebrant ISSUE - AGENCY - IS A PRINCIPAL LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED BAD FAITH ACTION OF ITS AGENT UNDER A CONTRACT IN WHICH THE CONTRACTING PARTY GAVE THE PRINCIPAL EXCLUSIVE DISCRETION CONCERNING THE ACTION OF THE PRINCIPAL AND IT'S AGENT? Attorney for Appellant: Jonathan E. Nuechterlein No. 116 Colleen L. Layton et al. v. Howard County Board of Appeals et al. ISSUE - ZONING - WHETHER A NEW ZONING LAW IS TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY? Attorneys for Appellant: M. Albert Figinski and Fred M. Lauer No. 107 Joy Friolo v. Douglas Frankel et al. ISSUE - ATTORNEYS - IS AN ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO A REASONABLE FEE UNDER THE LODESTAR METHOD FOR WORK INCURRED SUCCESSFULLY APPEALING AN ADVERSE RULING OF THE TRIAL JUDGE ON ATTORNEY'S FEES RELATED TO THE TRIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Leizer Z. Goldsmith Monday, April 9, 2007: No. 108 Ronnette McDaniel et al. v. American Honda Finance Corporation ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - MAY MOTOR VEHICLE LESSORS CHARGE LESSEES A LATE FEE FOR PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE 6% PER ANNUM LIMITATION ON INTEREST? Attorney for Appellant: John J. Beins No. 112 Tony Lamont Haile v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE DEFENDANT DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY HIS COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RENEW A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL? Attorney for Appellant: Amy Brennan No. 110 Montgomery Mutual Insurance Company v. Josephine Chesson et al. ISSUE - EVIDENCE - IS A DOCTOR'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING MOLD-RELATED ILLNESSES ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT A FRYE-REED ANALYSIS? Attorney for Appellant: Nancy J. Courson Tuesday, April 10, 2007: No. 113 Richard Greaves et al. v. Fay E. Mathis et al. ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - ARE NON-COMMERCIAL PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS IN GROSS TRANSFERABLE? Attorney for Appellant: Royal G. Shannonhouse No. 114 Leefen Quillens v. Richard W. Moore, Jr. ISSUE - APPEALS - WERE THE NOTICES OF APPEAL PREMATURE? Attorney for Appellant: David J. McDonnell No. 100 Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners v. City Neighbors Charter School et al. ISSUE - EDUCATION - WHAT ARE THE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR MARYLAND PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS? Attorney for Appellant: Warren N. Weaver No. 121 Board of Education of Prince George’s County v. Lincoln Public Charter School, Inc. ISSUE - EDUCATION - WHAT ARE THE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR A PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL? Attorney for Appellant: Andrew W. Nussbaum Wednesday, April 11, 2007: No. 102 Alejandro Rodriguez et al. v. James N. Clarke et al. ISSUE - WITNESSES - IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION MAY MEDICAL EXPERTS BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS WERE NOT IDENTIFIED PRIOR TO TRIAL AS REQUIRED BY MD. RULE 2-402? Attorneys for Appellant: Michele R. Callender and Angu R. Everton No. 111 People’s Counsel for Baltimore County et al. v. Dorothy Surina et al. ISSUE - ZONING - IS A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY SERVING A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT A PUBLIC FACILITY EXEMPT FROM COUNTY ZONING LAWS? Attorney for Appellant: Peter Max Zimmerman No. 117 Mary Carroll v. Phillip H. Konits, M.D. et al. ISSUE - HEALTHCARE OFFICE (HCO) - WAS THE CLAIMANT'S EXPERT WITNESS REPORT AND CERTIFICATION LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT? Attorney for Appellant: Darren Margolis No. 118 Fraternal Order of the Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc. et al. v. J. Thomas Manger et al. ISSUE - LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS (LEOBR) - WAS THE OFFICER AFFORDED LEOBR'S PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN HE WAS INTERROGATED ABOUT MISSING TRAFFIC COURT? Attorney for Appellant: Martha L. Handman
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 April 11, 2007, the Court will recess until May 2, 2007. ALEXANDER L. CUMMINGS |