Cases Pending Before The Court of Appeals

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. 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
026 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Kaufman   2019-09-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
001
2019 State Alexander 2019-03-29 2019-09-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Does section 6-233(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article, which allows a trial court to terminate a probation, permit that court to dismiss a violation of probation (“VOP”) petition filed by the State simply because the violation alleged is technical and the probationer served the equivalent of the presumptive penalty in custody awaiting the hearing on the VOP petition? 2) In any event, where the record shows that the trial court was mistaken in concluding that Respondent’s probation had expired, did the trial court err in closing the probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2069, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
001 M
2019 Application of G.L.F.     2019-09-06
[Oral Arguments]
  In the Matter of the Application of G.L.F. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
007
2019 Greene State 2019-04-10 2019-09-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) In a case of first impression, did CSA err in holding that Maryland adopts the “confirmatory identification” line of out-of-state cases that exempt from pre-trial constitutional review of “non-selective” identifications? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s suppression of the identification of Petitioner, where police procedures used to obtain the identification violate due process? 3) Did CSA err in alternatively holding that the trial court failed to examine the appropriate factors in ruling the identification was inadmissible?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2199, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
030 Misc.
2018 Brown, Bottini & Wilson State   2019-09-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Does the authority granted to the courts by Criminal Law Article § 5-609.1 to modify mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related offenses extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements and the State does not consent to modification? 2) Does the authority granted to the Courts by § 5-609.1 to modify such sentences extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements in which the defendant waived his or her right to seek a modification of sentence? 3) Does § 5-609.1 require the circuit court to hold a hearing before granting or denying a motion to modify a sentence filed pursuant to the statute? 4) When does the Court of Special Appeals have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order denying a § 5-609.1 motion to modify a sentence?
012
2019 Wynne Comptroller 2019-05-14 2019-10-02
[Oral Arguments]
  Taxation – Did the trial court correctly hold that Section 16 of the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2014 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, even though it reduces the interest on tax refunds paid to a discrete class of taxpayers engaged in interstate commerce?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3139, Sept. Term, 2018 (pending)
017
2019 Hoang Lowery 2019-06-07 2019-10-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA ignore established precedent and rules of statutory construction in holding that the tolling statute provided for under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-202 indefinitely tolled, until the closure of the bankruptcy case, actions only against debtors denied a discharge in bankruptcy? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the policy of the tolling statute should apply to cases where the debtor is denied a discharge, did CSA err in holding 1) that the statute applied to the creditor’s failure to renew his judgment; and 2) that the tolling should continue until the closure of the bankruptcy case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2085, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]
016
2019 Pinner Pinner 2019-06-07 2019-10-07
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-03
[Opinion]
Civil Procedure – Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City abuse its discretion in holding that an out-of-state defendant had sufficient contact through her attorneys for specific personal jurisdiction under the Maryland long arm statute for failing to name a use plaintiff and give the notice required by Md. Rule 15-1001 in a protracted, still continuing wrongful death case that the out-of-state resident initiated in the same Maryland court and from which she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1231, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
014
2019 Peterson State 2019-05-14 2019-10-08
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-31
[Opinion]
Criminal Procedure – 1) Is postconviction relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 2) Is coram nobis relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 3) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, who was convicted of a crime and found not to be criminally responsible and was on conditional release, was not eligible to collaterally challenge his convictions by either a postconviction petition or a petition for writ of coram nobis?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2332, Sept. Term, 2013; No. 474, Sept. Term, 2014
023
2019 Gables Construction Red Coats 2019-06-24 2019-11-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in holding that a defendant can be liable for joint tortfeasor contribution even though it is not liable to the injured person in tort by virtue of a contractual waiver of claims covered by insurance?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 907, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
025
2019 State Zadeh 2019-07-12 2019-11-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) When a jointly tried defendant claims that there were too many limiting instructions for a jury to effectively follow, should the reviewing court first consider whether the limiting instructions were justified by non-mutually admissible evidence? 2) When a warrant authorizes the seizure of certain evidence from a car, and an officer, during a lawful frisk of the driver, feels evidence that falls within the warrant, does the plain-feel doctrine permit the seizure of that evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1329, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
024
2019 Rossello Zurich Amer. Insurance 2019-07-12 2019-11-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Insurance Law – Does Maryland Law construe Respondent’s 1974 insurance policies as promising to pay the judgment in full, contrary to the law of some other states?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2436, Sept. Term, 2018 (pending)
003 Misc.
2019 Plank Cherneski   2019-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) May minority members of an LLC (a) bring a stand-alone cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the managing member of the LLC (b) premised on allegations that the managing member was engaged in unlawful actions that placed at risk the investments of the minority members? 2) If so, is such a claim (a) limited to allegations that would support another viable cause of action, (b) limited to allegations that would not also support another viable cause of action, or (c) not limited by whether or not there is another viable cause of action to address the same conduct?
 
035
2019 Estate of Blair Austin 2019-08-06 2019-12-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – Did CSA err when, based solely on their interpretation of the video evidence that the jury considered in reaching its verdict, it overturned the jury’s factual finding that Respondent exceeded the level of force that an objectively reasonable officer in his situation would have used?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 580, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
044 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Milton   2019-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
 
2020-03-03
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
026
2019 In re: O.P.   2019-07-12 2019-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Is the preponderance of the evidence standard adopted by the intermediate appellate court inconsistent with the plain language and protective purpose of the shelter-care statute? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the juvenile court did not commit error and abuse its discretion when it denied the local department’s petition to place in shelter care an infant who had suffered unexplained brain injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma and whose parents had delayed seeking medical treatment for four full days after the infant had stopped breathing for several minutes? 3) Does the appellate court have jurisdiction over a State appeal from an order denying a request for shelter care? 4) Given the fundamental, Constitutional right that parents and children have to an intact family free from unwarranted governmental interference, must the juvenile court apply a clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, rather than a mere reasonable basis standard, during a shelter care hearing, where the State seeks to separate children from their parents due to an alleged need to prevent serious, immediate harm?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2877, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
038
2019 Nationwide Mut. Insurance Shilling 2019-08-26 2019-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Insurance – Did CSA err in holding that the statute of limitations for an underinsured motorist claim starts to run on the date a plaintiff executes a release with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier, thereby allowing a plaintiff to unilaterally determine when the statute of limitations runs, prejudicing defendants?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 515, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
001 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Dailey   2019-12-09
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-18
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
034
2019 Pettiford Next Generation Trust 2019-08-26 2019-12-09
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-26
[Opinion]
Real Property – 1) Did the district court err by failing to dismiss Respondent’s summary ejectment complaint when Respondent had not obtained, prior to renting the property to Petitioner, a permit required by law for the property to be occupied? 2) Did the district court err when it effectively denied Petitioner the opportunity to assert a warranty of habitability defense and denied Petitioner’s attempted rent escrow defense? 3) Did the circuit court erroneously affirm the district court’s entry of a consent judgment after Petitioner raised multiple defenses, had not come to any agreement with Respondent, and neither party had requested entry of a consent judgment?

No. 34-C-19-000329, Circuit Court for Baltimore City
030
2019 Barclay Castruccio 2019-08-26 2019-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it ruled that the cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy is not a cause of action under Maryland law? 2) Did Petitioner adequately plead facts to succeed on a claim of intentional interference with an expectancy?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2488, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
031
2019 Podieh State 2019-08-26 2019-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) When the plain language of the immigration statutes is clear, must counsel correct a client’s known erroneous belief regarding the availability of immigration defenses following a plea to an aggravated felony? 2) Does the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply to immigration advice obtained to assist in evaluating a plea offer? 3) Did CSA wrongly overturn the postconviction court’s findings of facts and misapply the third prong of the Mickens v. Taylor, 240 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2001)(en banc), aff’d 535 U.S. 162 (2002), test governing conflict of interest claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 560, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
036
2019 Couret-Rios Fire & Police Emp. Retirement 2019-08-26 2019-12-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Local Codes – Did the hearing examiner commit an error of law when she awarded line-of-duty disability benefits based on a finding of fact that Petitioner suffered from attention and memory deficits as a result of a traumatic brain injury sustained while performing his job?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2493, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
033
2019 Linton Consumer Prot. Div. 2019-08-26 2020-01-06
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-03
[Opinion]
Commercial Law – 1) May class members in a class action lawsuit lawfully release and assign to others their right to receive money or property sought for their benefit by Respondents or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“the CFPB”) through those agencies’ separate enforcement actions under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act or the Consumer Financial Protection Act? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s final approval order and holding that class members’ right to receive money or property in the class action was not purely personal and private to those members, such that they could not release and assign those rights to others? 3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in approving the class action settlement? 4) As a matter of first impression, did a court-approved settlement agreement, in which class members voluntarily forewent and assigned away any benefit Respondent may someday obtain on the restitution claim it asserted in order to obtain a guaranteed financial recovery, interfere with Respondent’s public enforcement authority when Respondent’s restitution theories, if successful and recoverable, would exclusively benefit the class members? 5) Does the equitable one satisfaction rule, as discussed in the Court’s recent opinion in Michele Gallagher v. Mercy Medical Center, Inc., 463 Md. 615, 207 A.3d 634 (2019), preclude class members from receiving both financial restitution and common law damages? 6) In certifying and approving a class action settlement that compensates class members in an amount equivalent to only about 4% of the financial harm they suffered as a result of their transactions with Access Funding, a Petitioner, did the trial court err in declining to require submission of evidence to support its factual findings, including its findings that defendants-appellees are insolvent? 7) In approving a class settlement that purports to “release” Access Funding’s principals, not only from any liability to class members but also from liability to two government agencies with claims pending against them, did the trial court err in holding that it had “no basis” to consider whether the “released” principals have financial resources to satisfy a judgment on, or contribute to a settlement of, the claims from which they were “released”? 8) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in approving, through a judicial opinion drafted for it by counsel, a class settlement in which (a) absent class members, more than 70% victims of lead poisoning, receive compensation equivalent to only four cents for each dollar of financial harm they suffered, (b) the amount of the settlement fund is less than available insurance proceeds and the defendants would not make any direct contribution to the settlement fund, and (c) Access Funding would purportedly be “released” from making any restitution through pending lawsuits filed by Respondents and the CFPB? 9) Did the trial court err in granting approval to a private class settlement that requires class members to transfer back to Access Funding any payment rights that are restored to them, without compliance with Maryland’s structured settlement transfer law? 10) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to class counsel, where counsel sought no discovery and engaged in no litigation adverse to Access Funding after filing plaintiffs’ complaint; admitted that their class claims, had they been adjudicated, likely would have been barred by the defendants’ unanswered petitions to compel arbitration; recovered only $750,000 of the $17.7 million in total financial harm incurred by class members; and obtained this “recovery” principally by “settling” the separate, pending claims of Respondent and the CFPB? 11) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in approving a settlement notice that used complex legal jargon and failed to inform absent class members of the implication of the settlement?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2609, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
039
2019 Bratt State 2019-09-09 2020-01-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the failure of a sentencing judge to award a defendant mandatory credit against the sentence for time served in custody prior to trial render the sentence illegal and subject to correction under Maryland Rule 4-345(a)? 2) What is the proper remedy to correct the illegality when a sentence does not reflect the proper credit? 3) Is the claim that a sentencing court failed to comply with Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-218(e) properly raised in a Rule 4-345(a) motion when the court’s alleged failure to do so is a procedural flaw, i.e., not the result of a determination by the court that the defendant is not entitled to any or only partial credit for time that the defendant spent in pre-sentencing detention? 4) Where the defendant alleges that the sentencing court failed to comply with Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-218, and there is no dispute that the defendant is entitled to the credit that he or she requests, must the defendant seek correction of the procedural flaw by filing a Rule 4-351 motion or may the defendant seek the same relief by filing a Rule 4-345(a) motion?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 874, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
042
2019 Faulkner State 2019-09-09 2020-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the lower courts err in evaluating the cumulative impact of multiple discrete but complementary items of newly discovered innocence evidence? 2) Did the lower courts err in evaluating the impact of newly discovered third-party guilt evidence? 3) Did the lowers courts err by holding that evidence was not “newly discovered” for purposes of Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure, §8-301, because defense counsel failed to investigate an incomplete summary of a witness statement, where the State suppressed a videotaped statement by that witness with material additional information?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 615, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
043
2019 Smith State 2019-09-09 2020-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – 1) In considering a Writ of Actual Innocence, did the lower courts err in their evaluation of third-party perpetrator evidence? 2) Did the lower courts err in their evaluation of impeachment evidence that speaks to actual innocence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 619, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
044
2019 Lewis State 2019-09-09 2020-01-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the odor of marijuana on a person, without more, constitutes probable cause to arrest? 2) When a majority of a CSA panel concludes that its decision “will result in injustice,” should the court exercise its discretion under Maryland Rule 8-131 and address a constitutional question, which the parties fully briefed in the absence of a preservation challenge, about whether incontrovertible body-camera evidence demonstrates the “seizure” or a person without probable cause?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1115, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
008 AG
 
064 AG
2018

2018
Attorney Grievance Smith-Scott   2020-01-10
[Oral Arguments]
2020-01-10
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
040
2018 Steamfitters Local No. 602 Erie Insurance 2019-09-09 2020-01-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Do Landowners owe their neighbors a duty of care to protect against potential fires starting in normal, harmless areas of their property, such as landscape mulch, caused by third persons over whom they have no control? 2) Does a Plaintiff need to provide expert testimony as to reasonable, standard and effective measures to prevent such fires? 3) Under the facts and circumstances of this case, was the spoliation instruction unfairly prejudicial to the appellants? 4) Was is proper for the trial court to enter summary judgment on an indemnity agreement where the contention was that the negligence was that of third parties whose activities were related to the indemnitor and where there were questions of fact with regard to whether the contract had expired?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1142, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
032
2019 Rogers State 2019-08-26 2020-01-10
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-31
[Opinion]
Criminal Law – 1) When Petitioner pled guilty to an offense under a statute requiring no proof of the victim’s age and no proof of age is provided, does the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services have the authority to make an ex parte finding of fact that the victim is a minor and, thus, order Petitioner to register as a tier II sex offender? 2) Assuming arguendo that the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has the authority to make ex parte findings of fact regarding the age of the victim, what level of proof is required and who may make the ultimate determination of fact? 3) Did CSA correctly apply settled law when it reversed the trial court’s order granting Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, where Petitioner failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that he is not required to register as a sex offender based upon his conviction for human trafficking in violation of Criminal Law § 11-303? 4) Is Petitioner’s separation-of-powers argument both unpreserved and meritless? 5) Is Respondent entitled to summary judgment where Petitioner did not genuinely dispute Respondent’s evidence proving that the victim of the human trafficking offense was a minor, thus establishing as a matter of law that Petitioner was required to register as a sex offender based upon his conviction of human trafficking in violation of Criminal Law § 11-303?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1993, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
065 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Hensley   2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-27
[Opinion]

2020-02-06
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
041
2019 Pizza Di Joey Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. 2019-09-09 2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Local Code – Does Baltimore City Code, Art. 15, Section 17-33 violate Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2411, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
045
2019 State Frazier 2019-09-27 2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court reconsider the rule articulated in State v. Lancaster, 332 Md. 385 (1993), and hold that where two offenses are deemed the same for purposes of merger, a court may impose a sentence based on the offense that carries the greater penalty? 2) If the Court permits a sentencing court to impose a sentence available pursuant to a lesser-included offense, even if it provides the greater penalty, was Respondent’s sentence legal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 344, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
050
2019 Amer. Radiology Reiss 2019-10-17 2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting and extending Copsey v. Park, 453 Md. 141 (2017), to require a medical malpractice defendant arguing non-party negligence to present standard-of-care expert testimony where the defendant is not asserting non-party negligence as an affirmative defense? 2) Assuming arguendo that it was error for the trial court to submit the question of non-party negligence to the jury, did CSA err in concluding that the error was prejudicial based solely on an initially incorrectly completed juror questionnaire that was promptly corrected?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1570, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
046
2019 Shannon State 2019-10-09 2020-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Should Petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of a regulated firearm, after a disqualifying conviction for possession with intent to distribute, be affirmed, notwithstanding the drafting error in Count Five of the indictment which mislabeled the disqualifying conviction – ‘to wit: 05/09/2008, Possession with Intent to Distributed, Case No.: 107312013’ – as a “crime of violence”? 2) Did the CSA err in holding that the original indictment charged a violation of Public Safety Article (“P.S.”), §5-133(c)(1)(i), and that an amendment with Petitioner’s consent was necessary to change the character of that predicate offense to a violation of P.S. §5-133(c)(1)(ii)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2378, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
047
2019 Rochkind Stevenson 2019-10-09 2020-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical causation expert to testify that Plaintiff has attentional and behavioral injuries without providing a reliable method for attributing those injuries to lead exposure when Plaintiff had already been diagnosed with ADHD? 2) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical expert to render specific causation opinions based on general epidemiological studies? 3) Should the Court adopt the standard for admitting expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)? 4) Was Plaintiff’s medical causation expert’s specific causation opinion admissible in this case under Rule 5-702, applying the standard set forth in Daubert?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 199, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
048
2019 Hemming State 2019-10-09 2020-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Does a trial court have discretion under Md. Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial? 2) Did the trial court mistakenly believe that it had no authority under Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial and, as a result, fail to exercise its discretion under the rule? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court recognized and exercised its discretion, was the court’s refusal to bifurcate the counts charging possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person and possession of ammunition by a disqualified person from the remaining counts of the indictment an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 624, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
049
2019 Matter of Collins   2019-10-09 2020-02-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Workers’ Compensation – Did the release in the settlement agreement between Mr. Collins, Huntingtown Volunteer Fire Department, Chesapeake Employers’ Insurance Company and Selective Insurance Company operate to bar Mrs. Collins’ subsequent claim for death benefits under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 591, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
006 Misc.
2019 Baltimore City Police Dept. Potts   2020-02-10
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: This case was consolidated for oral argument with No. 51. The linked recording is the same for both.
  Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Whether, under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act and related contractual provisions, in light of the undisputed facts in the record, the three former Baltimore City Police officers named in this action are entitled to indemnity for the judgment entered against them herein; that is, whether, as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, the judgment sought to be enforced by Plaintiff is based on "tortious acts or omissions committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]."
051
2019 Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. Estate of James 2019-11-04 2020-02-10
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: This case was consolidated for oral argument with Misc No. 6. The linked recording is the same for both.
  Torts – Under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act and related contractual provisions, in light of the undisputed facts in the record, are the three former Baltimore City Police officers named in this action entitled to indemnity for the judgment entered against them herein; that is, as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, is the judgment sought to be enforced by Plaintiff based on "tortious acts or omissions committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]?

Court of Special Appeals, No. , Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
003 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Bah   2020-03-05
[Oral Arguments]
2020-03-12
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
056
2019 State Morrison 2019-12-10 2020-03-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Respondent was guilty of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment in the death of her infant beyond a reasonable doubt?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1859, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
053
2019 Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. Prime Realty 2019-11-06 2020-03-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Corporations & Associations – 1) Does Md. Rule 3-124(o), allowing for substituted service of process on the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”), provide due process? 2) Did the trial court err by invalidating, on due process grounds, an order ratifying the sale of a vacant property when Respondent claimed lack of notice but Petitioner effectuated substituted service on SDAT and Respondent’s lack of notice resulted from its failure to provide SDAT a current, lawful address for its resident agent?

Circuit Court for Baltimore City, No. 24-C-19-002940
 
061
2019 Motor Vehicle Admin. Geppert 2019-12-10 2020-03-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Transportation – 1) Did CSA lack jurisdiction to consider Respondents challenge to Petitioner’s refusal to issue him a learner’s permit where Md. Code (2014) §10-223(a) of the State Government Article excluded from that court’s jurisdiction cases “aris[ing] under Title 16 of the Transportation Article” - the Article governing issuance of learner’s permits? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that a circuit court possess the authority to order an executive agency to perform an act that is directly contrary to Maryland law?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 715, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
055
2019 Vigna State 2019-11-06 2020-03-09
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err by contradicting the majority of other jurisdictions in holding that appropriate interaction with children is not a pertinent character trait under Md. Rule 5-404(a)(2)(A)? 2) Did CSA err when it failed to recognize that denying Petitioner the ability to introduce relevant character evidence, while at the same time allowing Respondent to introduce non-criminal “bad acts” character evidence, denied him the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1327, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
054
2019 State Sample 2019-11-06 2020-03-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – Did CSA err by holding that the mere abstract possibility of unauthorized access to Respondent’s social media account barred any reasonable juror from finding that he was responsible for the account entry in question?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1715, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
057
2019 Franklin State 2019-12-10 2020-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Criminal Law – 1) Is it ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel to include in a timely filed motion for modification of sentence a request for a hearing accompanied by a request that the matter be held sub curia but to never secure an actual hearing on that motion in court in the ensuing five years as required by Md. Rule 4-345(e) in order to have the sentence actually modified? 2) Is a finding that it does not constitute ineffective assistance inconsistent with CSA’s decision in Moultrie v. State, 240 Md.App. 408 (2019)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1759, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
052
2019 Md. Reclamation Assoc. Harford Cnty. 2019-11-06 2020-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Constitutional Law – 1) Does a takings claim under the Maryland Constitution accrue at the time of a stayed administrative decision or at the time of a final judicial decision affirming that result? 2) May a regulatory taking become permanent and stabilized before a court of proper jurisdiction determines the validity of the regulation effecting the taking? 3) Should Petitioner’s takings claim be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to raise this constitutional issue in any administrative proceeding? 4) Did the decision of the Harford County Board of Appeals prohibiting a proposed use of Petitioner’s land to protect the public constitute a taking for which compensation is due? 5) Does the jury’s damages award as compensation for an unconstitutional taking contravene Maryland law when the damages are not the fair market value of Petitioner’s land but are, instead, the capitalized profits of a hypothetical business?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 788, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
060
2019 Aleman State 2019-12-10 2020-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Md. Code (2018 Repl. Vol.) §3- 112 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which requires the commitment to the Department of Health of a defendant found not criminally responsible, does not apply to a defendant who is in Maryland under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Md. Code (2017 Repl. Vol) §8-401 et seq. of the Correctional Services Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the IAD requires that Petitioner, who was found not criminally responsible by a Maryland jury, must be returned to the sending state to complete a sentence in that state? 3) Did CSA err in holding that § 8-408 of the IAD, which states that “[n]o provision of this Agreement. . . shall apply to any person who is adjudged to be mentally ill,” was not triggered by the jury’s verdict that Petitioner was not criminally responsible?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 823, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
005 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Markey & Hancock   2020-05-12   Attorney disciplinary matter.
058
2019 In Re: R.S.   2019-12-10 2020-05-12   Family Law – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Md. Code (2019 Repl. Vol.) § 5-601 – 5-611 of the Family Law Article (“ICPC”), and invalidating COMAR 07.02.11.28, based on the holding that the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state parents, even those unknown to the child and local department or who have abused or neglected a child, and therefore the ICPC cannot be used in a CINA proceeding to assist juvenile courts in protecting a child’s best interests where a parent resides in another state? 2) Did CSA err in reversing both the juvenile court’s order that R.S. was a CINA and the award of joint custody of R.S. to her father and paternal grandparents, based on the holding that the juvenile court should not have ordered an investigation under the ICPC of a non-custodial father who had never met the two-year old child?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3205, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
065
2019 Funes State 2020-01-10 2020-05-12   Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to exclude the chemical breath test, where Spanish-speaking Petitioner was advised of his right to decline the test in English? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to exclude the standardized field sobriety tests, where Petitioner was a Spanish speaker but the tests were performed in English?

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, No. 135651C.
066
2019 7222 Ambassador Rd. Nat. Center on Insts. and Alts. 2020-01-10 2020-05-12   Civil Procedure – Did CSA err when it affirmed the trial court’s ruling excluding all of Petitioner’s witnesses in the absence of the complaining party having filed any motion to compel or any motion for sanctions and when the trial court failed to consider or address any prejudice to the complaining party?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2541, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
007 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Hoerauf   2020-05-13   Attorney disciplinary matter.
008 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Collins   2020-05-13   Attorney disciplinary matter.
067
2019 State Day 2020-01-10 2020-05-13   Criminal Procedure – 1) Must a criminal defendant seeking a belated motion for modification or reduction of sentence pursuant Md. Rule 4-345(e), based on ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, establish in the post-conviction court that he or she specifically directed trial counsel to timely file that motion? 2) Did CSA err when it reversed, as clearly erroneous, the post-conviction court’s finding that Respondent had failed to provide competent evidence that he had asked his trial counsel to file a motion for modification or reduction of sentence on his behalf?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2729, Sept. Term, 2018
059
2019 75-80 Properties RALE, Inc. 2019-12-10 2020-05-13   General Provisions – 1) On a petition for judicial review of land use approvals, must the reviewing court evaluate an ex parte violation through the narrow lens of “procedural error”, as expressly prescribed by Md. Code (2014) §§ 5-859 and 5-862 of the General Provisions (“GP”) Article? 2) On a petition for judicial review, may a court vacate county approvals, including an executed Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (“DRRA”), based solely on the County’s violation of GP §5-862, when the statute expressly provides that the only remedy in the land use context is remand? 3) Does zoning estoppel apply where developers, acting in good faith, substantially relied on, and partially performed under, fully-vetted county approvals and an executed DRRA, and the misconduct stems solely from the government’s actions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1689, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
002 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Frank   TBA   Attorney disciplinary matter.
010 Misc.
2019 Berry & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Queen   TBA   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Whether the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code Ann. Ins. § 19-509(e)(1), and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article incorporated therein, require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance.
063
2019 Maryland Insurance Admin. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 2019-12-10 TBA   Insurance – Does the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code (2017) § 19-509(e)(1) of the Insurance Article, and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article incorporated therein, require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1622, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
068
2019 Anne Arundel Cnty. Reeves 2020-02-11 TBA   Torts – 1) As a matter of first impression does Md. Code § 11-110 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article limit the amount of damages recoverable for negligently causing the death of a pet? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1191, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
071
2019 Johnson Md. Dept. of Health 2020-02-11 TBA   Health – General – 1) Did Respondent impermissibly decide issues of competency in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it used an administrative process to forcibly medicate Petitioner for competency restoration based on a statute that omits language authorizing involuntary medication for that purpose? 2) Did Respondent violate the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights, which guarantee a criminal defendant certain due process and trial rights, when it forcibly medicated Petitioner after an administrative proceeding that prohibited him from asserting affirmative defenses related to his competency to rebut Respondent’s case and denied him meaningful access to his criminal defense attorney?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1688, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
070
2019 Chaplin Univ. Of Md. Medical Sys. 2020-02-11 TBA   Torts – 1) Does the exception to the board certification requirement in the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, Md. Code § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which excuses board-certification at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) for an attesting health care provider who has “taught medicine in the defendant’s specialty or a related field of health care,” require the attesting health care provider to have “taught medicine” to students who are “in the defendant’s specialty?” 2) Does the board certification requirement at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) apply when the defendant is not a natural person? 3) Does a claim for absence of informed consent when made in the same proceeding with a claim for malpractice require compliance with the certificate requirements in the Act, including the board-certification provisions (and its exceptions) at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (2)(B)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 317, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
015 Misc.
2019 Application of Jefferson     TBA   In the Matter of the Application of Antonette Yvonne Jefferson for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
062
2019 St. Luke Institute Jones 2019-12-10 TBA   Health General – 1) Does Petitioner have standing to raise the constitutional right of privacy on behalf of a mental health patient? 2) If Petitioner has the requisite standing, must the court first determine whether the constitutional right of privacy of the person whose records are sought has been superseded prior to any release of mental health records or can the court immediately proceed to the question of release without first finding that the right of privacy has been superseded? 3) If the constitutional right of privacy is required to be ruled upon by the court to determine if it has been superseded, then what are the standards to be applied by the court when a private party litigant rather than a state agency is making the request? 4) If the determination is made that records may be released, does the party requesting the release of mental health records have the burden of identifying to the court the nature of the information being sought for release from the mental health records prior to the court undertaking its in camera review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3331, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
064
2019 State Wilson 2020-01-10 TBA   Criminal Law – 1) Regardless whether a collusive marriage confers spousal testimonial privilege, is evidence that the defendant-spouse arranged to marry in order to suppress the witness-spouse’s testimony under the cloak of privilege sufficient to satisfy the “corrupt means” element of the obstruction of justice and witness tampering statutes? 2) As a matter of first impression in Maryland, is a party to a collusive marriage precluded from invoking the spousal testimonial privilege? 3) If Respondent’s convictions are affirmed, does his conviction and sentence for witness tampering merge into his conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice, where both convictions are predicated upon one act – marrying his longtime girlfriend and the mother of his two children?  

Court of Special Appeals, No. 436, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]