|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND SCHEDULE Thursday, September 4, 2008: Bar Admissions AG 51 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dana Andrew Paul Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee No. 6 Todd Tyrone Taylor v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID TRIAL COURT'S RESTRICTION UPON IMPEACHMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF A HEARSAY DECLARANT WHOSE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS WERE CENTRAL TO STATE'S CASE CONTRAVENE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AND MARYLAND EVIDENTIARY LAW? (2) DID TRIAL COURT IMPOSE AN OVERBROAD CONDITION OF PROBATION IN ORDERING PETITIONER "TO HAVE NO CONTACT WITH ANY MINORS"? Attorney for Appellant: Michael R. Braudes No. 19 Government Employees Insurance Company v. Ray E. Comer, Jr. ISSUES - INSURANCE - (1) DID TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOT GEICO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT? (2) IS APPELLEE ENTITLED TO UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS UNDER HIS FATHER'S GEICO POLICY? Attorneys for Appellant: Richard . Schimel and Anne K. Howard No. 13 Richard Lavonte Blanks v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING NO ERROR WHERE PROSECUTOR WAS PERMITTED, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, TO QUESTION THE ACCUSED CONCERNING THE CONTENT AND TIMING OF PETITIONER'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIS ATTORNEY? (2) DID THE PETITIONER WAIVE HIS CLAIM CONCERNING CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIS ATTORNEY BY NOT OBJECTING TO EACH QUESTION AT TRIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Michael R. Braudes No. 9 Thomas W. Marshall v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WHERE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENTS WERE NOT IMPROPER AND DID NOT WARRANT THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF A MISTRIAL? (2) DID THE PROSECUTOR'S IMPROPER REMARKS DURING REBUTTAL CLOSING ARGUMENT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF A FAIR TRIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Katherine P. Rasin No. 2 Maryse L. Karsenty et al. v. Kathleen Sexton Schoukroun ISSUES - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - WHETHER MARYLAND HAS A BRIGHT-LINE RULE ESTABLISHING THAT IN THE CASE WHICH A DECEASED SPOUSE HAS TRANSFERRED PROPERTY WITH A RETAINED INTEREST, THE TRANSFER CONSTITUTES A FRAUD ON SURVIVING SPOUSE ELECTIVE SHARE REGARDLESS OF MOTIVE, EXTENT OF THE CONTROL AND OTHER EQUITABLE FACTORS? Attorneys for Appellant: Linda Brown and Karen Amos No. 4 Charles Marcantonio, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherri Schaefer et al. v. Melissa Moen et al. ISSUE - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - WHETHER ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACTS EXISTS ON THE QUESTION OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN A WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION ARISING FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WHERE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THE DEFENDANTS' NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE AND TREAT STAGE ONE CANCER ALLOWED THE CANCER TO PROGRESS AND THE PATIENT ULTIMATELY DIE FROM METASTATIC CANCER? Attorney for Appellant: Jack Gold No. 5 Sherri A. Turner v. Raymond A. Kight et al. ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - DOES "TOLLED" AS USED IN 28 U.S.C.A. 1367(d) MEAN SUSPENSION OF THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR MERELY SUSPENSION OF THE EFFECT OF THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? Attorney for Appellant: Ralph T. Byrd No. 7 Linwood Bean v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Mental Hygiene Administration, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT A COMMITTEE CANNOT GAIN RELEASE PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE SECTION 3-114 WITHOUT PRODUCING HIS OWN EXPERT WITNESS? Attorney for Appellant: George Burns No. 61 Jane Doe et al. v. Montgomery County Board of Elections 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 OIF SIGNATURES, WHICH CHALLENGE WAS FILED WITHIN 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 REGISTERD VOTERS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY? No. 12 Sara Caldes et al. v. Elm Street Development et al. ISSUE - ZONING - CRITICAL AREA LAW - DOES COUNTY'S LOT MERGER LAW OVERRIDE THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS IN THE STATE AND COUNTY CRITICAL AREA LAW? Attorney for Appellant: Michael R. McCann No. 14 Devonte A. Brooks, a minor, etc. et al. v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City et al. ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - LIABILITY - CAN HOUSING AUTHORITY MANUFACTURE ITS OWN IMMUNITY FROM LEAD POISONING LIABILITY BY CLAIMING DEPLETION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE WHEN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH INSURANCE UNDERWRITING REQUIREMENTS TO CONDUCT LEAD RISK ASSESSMENTS OF ITS RENTAL PROPERTIES? Attorney for Appellant: Suzanne Shapiro No. 1 Christopher Hutchinson v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY RULING THAT IT IS A HARMLESS ERROR FOR PROSECUTOR TO ASK DEFENDANT, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT HAD LIED IN THE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY? Attorney for Appellee: Michael R. Malloy No. 3 Joseph Michael Jones v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID TRIAL COURT ERR IN PERMITTING SIX-YEAR OLD ALLEGED VICTIM TO TESTIFY WHERE CHILD DEMONSTRATED A CLEAR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE HIS OBLIGATION TO TELL THE TRUTH? (2) DID TRIAL COURT ERR IN ADMITTING ALLEGED VICTIM'S TAPED STATEMENT TO SOCIAL WORKER? Attorney for Appellant: Brian L. Zavin AG 55 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Cristine A. Kepple Attorney for Petitioner: Fletcher Thompson No. 17 Ayinde Deleon v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ALLOWING THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF GANG MEMBERSHIP, ASSOCIATION AND ACTIVITY AGAINST THE APPELLANT? Attorney for Appellant: Robert J. Tulley
No. 10 Oscar A. Cruz v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINE THAT THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY IN TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF ASSAULT, BOTH GENERATED BY THE EVIDENCE? Attorney for Appellant: Piedad Gomez
No. 11 Anthony Loyd Mitchell v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE STATE'S CLOSING ARGUMENT IMPROPERLY SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF? Attorney for Appellant: Bradford C. Peabody
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 September 9, 2008, the Court will recess until October 2, 2008.
BESSIE M. DECKER
|