SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2025
Wednesday, October 1, 2025:
Bar Admissions
No. 12 Comptroller of Maryland v. The Potomac Edison Company
Issues – Tax General – 1) Did ACM erroneously interpret § 11-201(b) of the Tax-General Article, which exempts “tangible personal property … used directly and predominantly in a production activity” from sales-and-use tax, to apply to the equipment that Respondent uses not to produce electricity but to transmit and deliver it from out-of-state generators to its Maryland consumers? 2) In applying ACM’s erroneous interpretation of § 11-201(b) of the Tax-General Article, did the Tax Court err in concluding that much of Respondent’s transmission and delivery equipment was used “directly and predominantly” – that is more than 50 percent – in a production activity, when Respondent’s expert testified that the equipment is used both to deliver and process electricity simultaneously and concurrently and that neither delivery nor processing predominates? 3) Did ACM err in concluding that § 13-508(a) of the Tax-General Article, which governs the time within which a taxpayer may seek a refund of tax paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller, supersedes the generally-applicable four-year limitations period in § 13-1104(g) and allows Respondent the refund of previously-paid sales-and-use-tax that was not paid pursuant to an assessment by the Comptroller? 4) Did ACM err by compelling the State to pay interest on Respondent’s refund claim when the evidence showed that Respondent paid the tax because of an “accounting system irregularity”, a mistake not attributable to the State?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ryan R. Dietrich
Attorney for Respondent: Michael B. Kimberly
No. 17 Jeffrey Reyes v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When is a criminal defendant’s sentence imposed under Maryland Rule 4-345? 2) Did the trial court illegally increase Petitioner’s sentence when sentencing him to one year, suspend all but nine months, followed by three years of supervised probation but later, after advising Petitioner of his post-trial rights, changing the sentence to five years, suspend all but nine months, and three years of supervised probation?
Attorney for Petitioner: Katherine P. Rasin
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew H. Constinett
Friday, October 3, 2025- to be held at Easton High School in Easton, Maryland:
No. 16 State of Maryland v. Michael Eugene Stone
Issue – Transportation – Do police officers have reasonable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop for use of a mobile phone while driving, in violation of §§ 21-1124 to 21-1124.2 of the Transportation Article, when they observe a driver manipulating a mobile phone in a manner that is consistent with sending a text message or initiating a phone call?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Jillian R. Chieppor
Attorney for Respondent: Douglas Nivens II
No. 20 Gary WIlson v. Tanglewood Venture, LP
Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court, upon request of an unlicensed landlord, require a tenant to pay rent under the rent escrow law, Md. Code, Real Property § 8-211? 2) For the purposes of determining an on-the-record versus de novo appeal, how is the amount in controversy determined in an escrow matter when the Parties’ claims differ from the amount of rent ordered to be placed into escrow and the amount placed in escrow? 3) Is an appeal of a rent escrow matter moot if, even though dangerous conditions continue unabated, the landlord agrees on appeal not to seek the rent for the unlicensed period subject to escrow or if there are collateral consequences to the trial court’s dismissal of the escrow?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Jonathan P. Riedel
Attorney for Respondent: John R. Grimm
Monday, October 6, 2025:
No. 11 Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. B.P. P.L.C., et al., Anne Arundel County v. B.P. P.L.C., et al., City of Annapolis v. B.P. P.L.C., et al.
Justice Battaglia will sit in place of Justice Biran
Issues – Torts – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do the U.S. Constitution and federal law preempt and preclude state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate? 2) Does Maryland law preclude nuisance claims based on injuries allegedly caused by the worldwide production, promotion, and sale of a lawful consumer product? 3) Does Maryland law preclude failure-to-warn claims premised on a duty to warn every person in the world whose use of a product may have contributed to a global phenomenon with effects that allegedly harmed the plaintiff? 4) Does Maryland law preclude trespass claims based on harms allegedly caused by global climate changes arising from the use of a product by billions of third parties around the world outside of producer’s control? From the cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for public and private nuisance? 2) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for strict liability and negligent failure to warn? 3) Do appellants/cross-appellees’ complaints state claims for trespass.
Attorney for Appellant: Victor M. Sher
Attorney for Appellee: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
No. 15 William L. Hallam v. New Life Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc., et al.
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents were able to raise their claim of fraud in post-sale exceptions filed pursuant to Rule 14-305(3)? 2) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents had preserved their right to raise their claim of fraud post-sale where they had failed to perfect their right to litigate the same fraud claim pre-sale?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jamar R. Brown
Attorney for Respondent: Richard B. Bardos
No. 19 Miguel Angel Santana v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Maryland’s double jeopardy common law bar retrial after a mistrial requested by the defendant where the mistrial was caused by the State’s recklessness? 2) In light of the clear evidence that the State’s recklessness caused the mistrial, should this Court reverse the denial of Petitioner’s motion to dismiss?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kevin B. Collins
Attorney for Respondent: Philip Murphy Donoho
Tuesday, October 7, 2025:
No. 3 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Sanjeev Varghese
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err when it held that governmental immunity for negligent infrastructure design decisions can be overcome by prior notice to the government that the design decision created a danger? 2) Did ACM’s decision that Maryland courts can adjudicate what infrastructure designs local governments should use violate the prohibition against the judicial branch assuming any of the duties of the other branches found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 3) Did ACM err when it held that Petitioner enjoyed neither common law governmental immunity nor statutory immunity under the Maryland Recreational Use Statute (§§ 5-1101 through 5-1109 of the Natural Resources Article)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Redmond
Attorney for Respondent: Allen E. Honick
No. 21 CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. v. Matthew Skipper, et al.
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did ACM err when it applied the incorrect standard to its analysis of whether Respondents’ complaint stated claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation? 2) Did ACM erroneously conclude that the Respondents’ claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation did not fail as a matter of law based on a misinterpretation of COMAR § 31.11.06.06(B)(11) and Md. Insurance Administration Bulletin 13-01? 3) Did ACM err when it held that the mere possibility that Respondents could be entitled to pre-judgment interest is sufficient to confer standing and seek class certification under Md. law? 4) Did ACM err when, relying on Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 430 Md. 144 (2013), it found Respondents had standing to pursue their claims against Petitioner?
Attorney for Petitioner: Glenn A. Gordon
Attorney for Respondent: Courtney L. Weiner
No. 22 Donte Demont Strand v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a theft prosecution, where the State alleges a specific item stolen, but fails to prove what was stolen, should trial courts apply an essential element variance analysis or a substantial prejudice variance analysis? 2) If the trial courts apply a substantial prejudice variance analysis, was Petitioner misled such that he could not lodge an effective defense or exposed to double jeopardy where the State alleged specific items stolen but failed to prove the identity of what was taken? 3) Where an indictment for theft alleges specific items stolen but fails to prove the identity of the item stolen, is the evidence sufficient to convict? 4) Where the consolidated theft statute defines property as “anything of value”, is it a rational inference that any unidentified tangible item has value because every tangible item invariably has an ascertainable replacement cost, or does the value of an item require some evidence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Lauren Dollar
Attorney for Respondent: Madeleine Mietus
After October 7, 2025, the Court will recess until November 3, 2025.
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 8:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK