|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, October 2, 2008: Bar Admissions
ISSUE - ZONING - DID THE BOARD ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED USE CONSTITUTES RELIGIOUS EXERCISE, BUT FOUND COMPELLING INTERESTS EXIST WHICH PRESENT NO SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE? Attorney for Appellant: C. William Clark
No. 33 Steven Anthony Powell v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GRANT A MISTRIAL ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE? Attorney for Appellant: Juan Reyes
No. 36 Supervisor of Assessments v. Stellar GT ISSUE - TAX AND ASSESSMENTS - WHEN VALUE OF PROPERTY HAS INCREASED BY MORE THAN $50,000 BECAUSE OF RENOVATIONS IN PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR AND THIS INCREASE IS NOT CAPTURED IN EXISTING ASSESSMENT, IS THE SECTION 8-104 (c) MANDATE TO REVALUE THE PROPERTY AT A NEW VALUE NEGATED WHEN SUPERVISOR'S REVIEW OF PROPERTY WAS PROMPTED BY A RECENT SALE OR ASSESSOR HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF RENOVATIONS AT THE TIME OF THE LAST TRIENNIAL ASSESSMENT? Attorney for Appellant: David M. Lyon
No. 37 James Desmond Jones v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT THE MERE POSTING OF A "NO TRESPASSING" SIGN DID NOT PROHIBIT POLICE OFFICERS FROM APPROACHING AND KNOCKING ON PETITIONER'S FRON DOOR? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT POLICE OFFICERS CONDUCTED A LAWFUL CONSENT SEARCH OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY? Attorney for Appellant: Nancy Forster
Friday, October 3, 2008: No. 16 Wayne Stockstill v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT REVOKING APPELLANT'S PROBATION SHOULD BE VACATED AND PROBATION REINSTATED BECAUSE THE REVOCATION WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE ADMITTED IN VIOLATION OF MARYLAND PHYCHIATRIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGE STATUTE? Attorney for Appellant: Rachel Marbelstone Kamins
No. 35 Dion G. Tucker v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FORMULATING A JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING CROSS-RACE IDENTIFICATION? Attorney for Appellant: Jason L. Lichtman
No. 30 State of Maryland v. Dennis Lamont Lucas ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT INCORRECTLY HOLD THAT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM'S EXCITED UTTERANCES MADE TO FIRST RESPONDING POLICE OFFICERS WERE TESTIMONIAL UNDER CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) AND ITS PROGENY? Attorney for Appellant: Brian S. Kleinbord
No. 32 Crofton Convalescent Center, Inc. v.
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Nursing Home ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - DOES THRIFTY OIL CO. V. BANK OF AM. NAT'L TRUST & SAV. ASS'N, 310 f.3d 1188 (9TH Cir. 2002) ESTABLISH MARYLAND LAW GOVERNING WHETHER INTEREST PAID BY A NURSING FACILITY PURSUANT TO A SWAP AGREEMENT THAT SECURES THE FACILITY'S REAL PROPERTY IS MORTGAGE INTEREST UNDER THE MARYLAND MEDICAID REGULATION MAKING MORTGAGE INTEREST AN ALLOWABLE, REIMBURSED COST? Attorney for Appellant: Howard L. Sollins Monday, October 6, 2008: No. 24 Ramon Lopez v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT FIND THAT PETITIONER'S WAIVER OF COUNSEL MIDWAY THROUGH TRIAL WAS KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN ADVISED OF THE SENTENCE HE COULD RECEIVE AS A SUBSEQUENT OFFENDER? Attorney for Appellant: Piedad Gomez
No. 18 Potomac Valley Orthopaedic Associates, et al. v. Maryland State Board of Physicians, et al. ISSUE - HEALTH OCCUPATIONS - WHETHER THE MARYLAND PATIENT REFERRAL LAW PROHIBITS AN ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON FROM FURNISHING PATIENTS WITH MRI OR CT DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES WITHIN OFFICE OR GROUP, EVEN WHEN THE ORTHOPAEDIST COMPLIES WITH THE "GROUP PRACTICE" EXEMPTION IN HEALTH OCC. SECTION 1-302(d)(2) OR THE "DIRECT SUPERVISION" EXEMPTION IN HEALTH OCC. SECTION 1-302(d)(3)? Attorney for Appellant: Howard Rubin
No. 15 In Re: Gloria H. ISSUE - JUVENILE LAW - EDUCATION - WAS EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT VIOLATED MD. CODE, EDUCATION, SECTION 7-701(e)(2)? Attorney for Appellant: Stacey McCormack
No. 23 Richard L. Kramer v. Liberty Property Trust f/k/a Republic Property Trust ISSUES - CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT AN ACTION TO REMOVE A TRUSTEE FROM THE BOARD OF A MARYLAND "REIT" FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS NOT A "PROCEEDING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2-418 OF THE MARYLAND CODE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE HE WAS "MADE A PARTY TO A PROCEEDING BY REASON OF SUCH STATUS" AS A TRUSTEE AND OFFICER? Attorney for Appellant: Stephen Sorensen
Tuesday, October 7, 2008: No. 28 Patrick G. McKenzie v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO CONVIT THE PETITIONER OF FOURTH DEGREE BURGLARY OF A DWELLING WHERE THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONER BROKE AND ENTERED AN UNFURNISHED, VACANT APARTMENT WHICH, AT THE TIME OF THE BREAKING, WAS UNOCCUPIED? Attorney for Appellant: Amanda M. Downs
No. 22 Pines Point Marina, a Condominium Council of Unit Owners, Inc. v. Jim Rehak, et al. ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT COMPLAINT WAS A NULLITY AND AS SUCH INEFFECTIVE FOR PURPOSE OF TOLLING THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? Attorney for Appellant: David M. Honick
No. 21 Donte William Gregg v. State of Maryland Attorney for Appellant: George E. Burns 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 October 7, 2008, the Court will recess until
October 30, 2008. BESSIE M. DECKER |