NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are taken up by the Court. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).
Click on the column title to sort by that column.
| Case No. | Year | Petitioner | Respondent | Cert. Granted | Oral Arguments | Opinion Filed | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
024 | 2022 | Fooks | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-08-15 [PC Order] | Constitutional Law – 1) In view of existing Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent interim decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), what is the proper analytical framework to apply to constitutional challenges to Maryland’s firearms laws? 2) Did CSA fail to apply the proper analytical framework to the constitutional challenges in this case? 3) Is Md. Code § 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to this case? Court of Special Appeals, No. 269, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
035 | 2023 | Frederick | Balt. City Bd. of Elections | 2024-08-28 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-29 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. No. C-24-CV-24-001361, Circuit Court for Baltimore City | |
034 | 2023 | Bd. of Elections | Mayor & City Cnc. of Balt. | 2024-08-28 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-29 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. No. C-24-CV-24-001320, Circuit Court for Baltimore City | |
001 | 2024 | SM Landover LLC SM Parkside LLC | Sanders Lindsey | 2024-02-16 | 2024-09-05 [Oral Arguments] | Real Property – 1) When does a cause of action accrue under the Disclosure Act, Md. Code, Real Prop. Art. (“RP”) § 14-117(a)(3)(i), for failing to include in the initial contract of sale statutory disclosures relating to deferred water and sewer charges? 2) Is a person who is a “home builder” under Md. Code, Business Regulations Art. (“BR”) §4.5-101 relieved of their duty to register as a “home builder” when a different registered home builder is a party to the same contract? 3) Can the unregistered home builder, acting as the seller, of a new home enforce the sales contract against the purchaser where another party, here the builder of the home, who is a registered home builder is also a party to the sale contract? Appellate Court of Maryland, Nos. 1876 & 1880, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) | |
002 | 2024 | Caruso Builder Belle Oak | Sullivan | 2024-02-16 | 2024-09-05 [Oral Arguments] | Real Property - When does a cause of action accrue under the Disclosure Act, Md. Code, Real Prop. Art. § 14-117(a)(3)(i), for failing to include in the initial contract of sale statutory disclosures relating to deferred water and sewer charges? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 153, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
003 | 2024 | Ledford | Jenway Contracting | 2024-03-25 | 2024-09-05 [Oral Arguments] | Labor & Employment – Did ACM err by extending the exclusivity provision of § 9-509 of the Labor & Employment Article (workers’ compensation) to non-dependents? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1755, Sept. Term, 2022, [Opinion] | |
050 Misc. | 2023 | Application of O.A.S. for Admission to the Bar | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-09 [Oral Arguments] | In the Matter of the Application of O.A.S. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland | ||
005 | 2024 | Hollins | State | 2024-04-18 | 2024-09-09 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM erroneously apply a sufficiency of the evidence standard instead of the “some evidence” standard when it upheld the denial of Petitioner’s request for a non-pattern jury instruction regarding the alleged victim’s propensity for violence? 2) Did the trial court violate the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution when it prohibited Petitioner from cross-examining the alleged victim about visible injuries to rebut the claim raised on direct examination that the victim had outgrown any violence in his past? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2023, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
007 | 2024 | Akers | State | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-09 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Law – Is evidence of a pregnant woman’s forgoing prenatal care or evidence of a pregnant woman’s conducting Internet searches about terminating the pregnancy relevant as a matter of law to show the woman’s intent to kill the newborn at birth, or if marginally relevant, unfairly prejudicial? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 925, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
002 Misc. | 2024 | Key School | Bunker | 2024-09-10 [Oral Arguments] Please note: This case was consolidated for the purpose of oral arguments on the Constitutionality question with No. 10, below. | Certified Question of Law from the US District Court for the District of Maryland: Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws ch. 5 (S.B. 686), (codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution? | ||
010 | 2024 | Bd. of Education | Doe | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-10 [Oral Arguments - Constitutionality] [Oral Arguments - Standing] Please note: This case was consolidated for the purpose of oral arguments on the Constitutionality question with Misc No. 2, above. The Standing question was argued separately. | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws Ch. 5 (S.B. 686) (codified at Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117)(the “MCVA”), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution? 2) As a subdivision of the State, see Bd. Of Educ. v. Sec’y of Personnel, 317 Md. 34, 44-45 (1989), does the petitioner have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the MCVA? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 107, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | |
009 | 2024 | Archbishop of Washington | Doe | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-10 [Oral Arguments] | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws Ch. 5 (S.B. 686) (codified at Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 107, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | |
008 | 2024 | In re: M.Z. | 2024-05-28 | 2024-10-01 [Oral Arguments] | Family Law – When a court terminates jurisdiction in a CINA case over the objection of a parent, is the parent “aggrieved” by that court’s unfavorable judgment such that the parent is entitled to appeal? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1412, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
014 | 2024 | Zukowski | Anne Arundel Cty. | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-01 [Oral Arguments] | Workers’ Compensation – Did the General Assembly intend to offset compensation or benefits to be paid directly to claimants when it adopted Md. Code, Labor & Employment Art. § 9-610? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1121, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
011 | 2024 | Walton | Premier Soccer Club | 2024-05-31 | 2024-10-02 [Oral Arguments] The oral arguments in this matter were held at Frederick Douglass High School, Northwestern Campus, in Baltimore, Maryland. | Tort – Did ACM properly affirm the trial court’s ruling that a violation of Md. Code Health General Article § 14-501 (concussion policy and awareness) could not be the proximate cause of a concussion injury as a matter of law notwithstanding that the injured person was within the class of persons – youth athletes – that the statute was intended to protect and the injury was the type of injury the statue was designed to prevent? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1691, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
042 AG | 2023 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Yeatman | 2024-10-07 [Oral Arguments] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
015 | 2024 | In re: Estate of Schappell | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-07 [Oral Arguments] | Estates & Trusts – Did ACM err by rejecting Maryland’s longstanding requirement of an agreement to adopt as an element of equitable adoption, instead replacing it with a case-by-case examination of “fairness” factors? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2048, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
016 | 2024 | In the Matter of Isely | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-08 [Oral Arguments] | Family Law – Does the reach of Federal preemption extend such that a former spouse is without rights to enforce a contract related to already distributed retirement proceeds from a federal Thrift Savings Plan; or does Maryland follow the reasoning and interpretation set forth in Andochick v. Byrd, 709 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2013), allowing a former spouse to enforce a contract right regarding already distributed retirement proceeds to effectuate the intention of the parties? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 490, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
26 | 2024 | State Bd. of Elections | Ambridge | 2024-10-09 (1:00 p.m.) [Oral Arguments] | 2024-10-10 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. No. C-02-CV-24-002246, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County | |
19 | 2024 | Zimmerman | State | 2024-07-29 | 2024-11-07 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – Whether further appellate review lies in either the Supreme Court of Maryland or the Appellate Court of Maryland from a circuit court’s order revoking probation when the circuit court’s order was entered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the District Court of Maryland. No. C-10-CR-23-000824, Circuit Court for Frederick County | |
12 | 2024 | Mayor & City Cncl. Of Balt. | Wallace | 2024-05-31 | 2024-11-08 [Oral Arguments] | Natural Resources – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, Md. Code, Natural Resources § 5-1101, et seq., (“MRUS”) does not apply to paths in public parks, even where a local government has made the path available for recreational use? 2) Did ACM err when it held that Haley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269 (1956), applies to any path that may serve as a “public connector” between parts of the City, so that any such path in a public park is not subject to MRUS protections? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1644, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
13 | 2024 | Nguyen | State | 2024-06-17 | 2024-11-08 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Law – Petition: 1) Does Maryland common law impose on police officers a general “duty to protect,” a breach of which is enforceable in a criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment or other crimes of omission, and if so, is the duty triggered when one suspect assaults another suspect in an officer’s presence? 2) If Petitioner had a “duty to protect”, was the testimony of other officers that they would have separated or stood between the two suspects legally sufficient to prove that Petitioner, by taking neither action, grossly departed from the standard of conduct that a reasonable, similarly situated police officer would have observed? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1495, Sept. Term, 2022 | |
3 Misc. 4 Misc. | 2024 | Govt. Employees Ins. Co. | MAO-MSO Recovery | 2024-12-09 | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Whether the assignment of the right to seek and receive unpaid reimbursement of payments for expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) (2018) pursuant to a contingency compensation arrangement/agreement is void as against public policy of Maryland, and if so, whether such an arrangement/agreement is unenforceable regardless of any choice of law provision contained in such an agreement. | ||
017 | 2024 | Petition of Featherfall Restoration | 2024-06-17 | 2024-12-09 | Insurance Law – 1) Does the standard insurance policy clause prohibiting assignment of “this policy” absent insurer consent prohibit the insured from assigning a post-loss claim benefit under the policy without its consent? 2) Did the lower courts err in affording deference to and affirming the ruling of law by the Maryland Insurance Administration (“MIA”) that anti-assignment clauses in property insurance policies preclude post-loss assignments of claims, instead of following this Court’s precedents upholding post-loss claim assignments in the face of anti-assignment clauses? 3) Did the lower courts err in affirming the MIA’s decision that Petitioner, as an assignee of insurance benefits from the insurer, was not a “claimant” or “aggrieved” with standing to challenge the insurer’s unfair claims settlement practices with respect to the claim assigned? 4) Should the trial court have issued a declaratory judgment that the assignment of claim benefits at issue did not violate the contractual provision that “assignment of this policy will not be valid unless we give our written consent” instead of deferring to the agency’s interpretation of Maryland contract law? (Note: The SCM granted a writ of cert only as to Petitioner’s questions 2, 4, 5, and 6.) Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1313, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
021 | 2024 | Coyle | State | 2024-08-27 | 2024-12-09 | Criminal Law – 1) When the Office of the Public Defender appointed counsel to Petitioner and approved of assigned counsel’s determination that a petition for writ of certiorari should be filed, was Petitioner entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in filing such a petition? 2) Must prejudice be presumed when, due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner was denied his right to file a petition for writ of certiorari and did the post-conviction court err in holding that he must establish that the petition would have been granted? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1440, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) | |
5 Misc. | 2024 | Willey | Brown | 2024-12-10 | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1) What legal standard does the term "reasonable grounds" connote in Maryland's Red Flag Law, codified in Title Five of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Annotated Code? 2) Does the statue permit an extreme risk protective order to issue upon a standard less than probable cause? | ||
023 | 2024 | Comptroller of Md. | Badlia Brothers | 2024-08-27 | 2024-12-10 | State Government – Where the State has already satisfied its obligation to pay funds pursuant to a state-issued check, did the trial court err in concluding that the State has waived sovereign immunity against a claim by a holder in due course of that check who subsequently seeks to have the State pay that obligation a second time? No. 24-C-24-000440, Circuit Court for Baltimore City | |
20 | 2024 | Saunders | Gilman | 2024-08-12 | 2025-01-06 | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did ACM err when it concluded that no exception to the final judgment rule applies and that it lacked appellate jurisdiction? 2) Does § 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings article permit an immediate appeal from an order finding adverse possession of real property before a final judgment has been entered? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 463, Sept. Term, 2022 (dismissed) | |
25 | 2024 | In the Matter of Lewis | 2024-09-20 | 2025-01-06 | Issues – County Codes – 1) Did ACM err in its interpretation and application of § 5-403 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings (CJP) Article (immunities related to certain agricultural operations)? 2) Did ACM err in holding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Talbot County Agricultural Resolution Board’s decision finding that the long-term storage of materials on and application of materials to farmland is a generally accepted agricultural activity entitled to the rebuttable presumption of Talbot County Code Chapter 128 (the Right-to-Farm law) or CJP §5-403? 3) Did ACM err in applying Chapter 128 and CJP §5-403 when the court held the storage and application of materials did not substantially change the agricultural operation and did not amount to a waiver of protection under Chapter 128 and CJP §5-403? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 951, Sept. Term, 2023 [Opinion] | ||
022 | 2024 | Canton Harbor Healthcare Ctr. | Robinson | 2024-08-27 | 2025-01-07 | Tort – 1) Can a registered nurse be a “qualified expert” to attest “that the departure from standards of care is the proximate cause of the alleged injury” as required by Courts & Judicial Proceedings §3-2A-04(b)(1)(i), even though offering a medical diagnosis is outside the authorized scope of nursing practice in Maryland? 2) Can a registered nurse opine whether physicians wrongfully failed to prescribed medicines or undertake appropriate treatment plans? 3) Did ACM improperly rely on Federal regulations regarding Medicare/Medicaid funding of nursing facilities in determining the qualifications of a registered nurse to give a medical causation opinion? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2169, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
24 | 2024 | Montague | State | 2024-09-20 | Issue – Criminal Procedure – May a trial court deny a person’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to the Juvenile Restoration Act, § 8-110 of the Criminal Procedure Article, solely or primarily because he maintained his innocence? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 409, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | ||
027 | 2024 | Hollabaugh | MRO Corporation | 2024-10-25 | Fees - 1) Whether under Maryland’s Confidentiality of Medical Records Act (CMRA), § 4-304 of the Health General Article, the ACM erred in holding that respondent is permitted to charge a “reasonable cost-based fee” for “retrieval and preparation” of requested medical records, when respondent had no medical records to retrieve, produce or copy? 2) May the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint be affirmed on the alternative ground that she lacks standing under the CMRA because any claim would have to belong to her attorneys who requested her records and were required to pay the allegedly unauthorized fee? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1049, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
028 | 2024 | Trimble | State | 2024-10-25 | Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) In light of the General Assembly’s recognition of the mitigating features of youth when enacting the Juvenile Restoration Act, may a circuit court deciding a motion for sentence reduction under § 8-110 of the Criminal Procedure (CP) Article treat “the individual’s age at the time of the offense” as an aggravating factor because the movant was 17 years and approximately 8 months old at the time of the offense? 2) In light of the General Assembly’s intent that CP § 8-110 provide people who were minors at the time of a crime a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” did the Appellate Court err in holding that a defendant’s maturity and rehabilitation was not entitled to any greater weight than any of the other ten statutory factors? 3) Did the circuit court err in dismissing extensive evidence of rehabilitation because the petitioner was diagnosed with a psychological disorder? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1834, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
029 | 2024 | Md. Indoor Play | Snowden Investment | 2024-10-25 | Contract Law – 1) Did the ACM expand the right of first refusal by holding that a breach of the right can be established without proof that the buyer was ready, willing, and able to act on it. 2) Did the ACM create and apply a new measure of general damages for breach of contract by allowing the non-breaching party to recover damages measured by the “fair value” as determined years after the alleged breach occurred. Appellate Court of Maryland, Nos. 683 & 2307, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
023 AG | 2023 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Pisner | Attorney disciplinary matter. |