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
050
2019 Amer. Radiology Reiss 2019-10-17 2020-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
2020-08-24
[Opinion]
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]
047
2019 Rochkind Stevenson 2019-10-09 2020-02-07
[Oral Arguments]
2020-08-28
[Opinion]
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)
060
2019 Aleman State 2019-12-10 2020-03-10
[Oral Arguments]
2020-06-30
[Opinion]
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]
059
2019 75-80 Properties RALE, Inc. 2019-12-10 2020-05-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
2020-08-24
[Opinion]
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   2020-05-28
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
2020-08-26
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
071
2019 Johnson Md. Dept. of Health 2020-02-11 2020-06-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible.
2020-08-24
[Opinion]
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)
20 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Riely   2020-09-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
073
2019 Wise State 2020-03-11 2020-09-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the admission of a statement by a witness with memory loss as a prior inconsistent statement, in conflict with Corbett v. State, 130 Md.App. 408, cert. denied, 359 Md. 31 (2000)? 2) Did CSA err in expanding the circumstances under which hearsay is admissible under Rule 5-802.1(a) to include statements containing a “material” inconsistency with the witness’s testimony?


Court of Special Appeals, No. 2206, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
062
2019 St. Luke Institute Jones 2019-12-10 2020-09-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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]
015 Misc.
2019 Application of Jefferson     2020-09-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2020-09-14
[Order]
In the Matter of the Application of Antonette Yvonne Jefferson for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
068
2019 Anne Arundel Cnty. Reeves 2020-02-11 2020-09-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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)
064
2019 State Wilson 2020-01-10 2020-09-14
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Issues – 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]
069
2019 Montgomery Cnty. Cochran & Bowen 2020-02-11 2020-09-14
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err in holding that, when calculating a claimant’s hearing loss under Md. Code § 9-650(b)(3) of the Labor & Employment Article, the decibels deducted from the total average hearing loss should be calculated by counting the number of years between the date the claimant turned 50 and the date the claimant retired? 2) Did CSA err in reversing a factual finding of the Workers’ Compensation Commission as to whether Respondent Bowen suffered a “disablement” given that 1) the Commission’s factual finding is “presumed to be correct”; 2) the issue of whether the claimant suffered a disablement was not raised at the Commission hearing; and 3) there was no evidence put on by Petitioner before the trial court to disturb the Commission’s finding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 662, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
075
2019 Montague State 2020-03-11 2020-09-14
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Is artistic expression, in the form of rap lyrics, that does not have a nexus to the alleged crime relevant as substantive evidence of guilt?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2033, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
004 Misc.
2020 In the Matter of K.E.     2020-09-15
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2020-09-17
[Order]
SBLE denial of ADA accommodations matter.
 
074
2019 State Carter 2020-03-11 2020-09-15
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Does the Maryland Transit Administration’s (“MTA”) practice of fare inspection on the Light Rail comply with the Fourth Amendment? 2) If fare inspection does not comply with the Fourth Amendment, did the discovery of an open warrant for Respondent’s arrest nevertheless attenuate the violation under Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), where any unconstitutionality of the MTA’s fare inspection practice was not previously established?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 478, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
070
2019 Chaplin Univ. Of Md. Medical Sys. 2020-02-11 2020-09-15
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2020-09-16
[PC Order]
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)
019 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Ibebuchi   2020-10-01   Attorney disciplinary matter.
006
2020 Fowlkes Choudhry 2020-03-30 2020-10-01   Torts – Did CSA err in its formulation and application of Maryland law regarding what a wrongful death plaintiff must prove in order to recover damages for the loss of household services that would have been provided by Petitioner’s deceased adult child?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1148, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
003
2020 State Elzey 2020-03-11 2020-10-01   Criminal Law – Was CSA wrong in holding that a jury may not be instructed to find that the victim abused the defendant and the defendant suffers from Battered Spouse Syndrome before considering expert testimony on the syndrome?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1131, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
046 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Keating   2020-10-02   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
001
2020 Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Selective Way Ins. 2020-03-11 2020-10-02   Civil Procedure – Did CSA err in ruling that prejudgment interest is not recoverable as a matter of right on amounts paid for defense costs where a liability insurer breaches its duty to defend?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 755, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
002
2020 Taylor State 2020-03-11 2020-10-02   Criminal Law – 1) Where the only disputed issue at trial was identity, and the only evidence of identity was the victim’s identification of Petitioner, did CSA misapply the harmless error test in holding that an erroneously-given “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the victim is legally sufficient to sustain the convictions? 2) If preserved, should review of the trial court’s scientific evidence instruction be based on law existing at the time of the trial in 2008 and not based on this Court’s decisions in Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011)? If so, did the trial court act within its discretion when it gave the scientific evidence instruction when the instruction was proper under then existing law, i.e., Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549 (2007)? 3) When Petitioner took exception to the scientific evidence instruction but did not state any particular grounds for the objection, did Petitioner fail to preserve for appellate review the question of the claimed error of the trial court’s instruction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2190, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]
037 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Karambelas   2020-10-05   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
004
2020 Byrd State 2020-03-11 2020-10-05   Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner’s guilty pleas were valid even though the State did not disclose material impeachment evidence about key police witnesses (including evidence of lying in federal court and falsifying a warrant)? 2) Did the non-disclosure of the evidence violate the State’s constitutional discovery obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 343 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny? 3) Did the non-disclosure of the evidence constitute a misrepresentation by the State rendering the pleas invalid under Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1972), and its progeny?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 682, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
005
2020 Tyson Farms Uninsured Emp. Fund 2020-03-11 2020-10-05   Labor & Employment – 1) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s determination that the jury should resolve conflicting facts and inferences regarding whether Mr. Garcia was Petitioner’s employee? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that no reasonable jury could find that Mr. Garcia was not Petitioner’s employee, even though Petitioner’s contract was with the owner of the farm, and Petitioner did not hire (or fire) Mr. Garcia; pay him; set his hours or wages; or have a contract with him?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1057, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
063 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Johnson   2020-10-29   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
010
2020 Hector Bank of New York Mellon 2020-05-08 2020-10-29   Estates & Trusts – 1) As a matter of first impression, can a business Trust be individually liable for compliance with the Baltimore City Housing Code, pursuant to an interpretation of Estates & Trusts Art. §14.5-908? 2) Did CSA err in carving out an exception to Allen v. Dackman, 413 Md. 132 (2010), for a bank that was the Trustee of a mortgage-backed security, and that foreclosed on an old deteriorated property in Baltimore and then purchases said property at auction? 3) May a Bank acting as Trustee which owned a rental property face liability based upon the local Housing Code, or do the Bank's own internal documents and agreements decide the scope of liability?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3100, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
011
2020 Canales-Yanez State 2020-05-08 2020-10-29   Criminal Law – 1) When a Brady violation occurs during a bench trial, is the test for materiality satisfied simply by the judge’s determination that his verdict would not have changed had the evidence not been suppressed unless such a conclusion would be patently unreasonable, without giving due consideration to the effect of the suppression of evidence on the defense case preparation and trial strategy? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the Brady violation did not undermine confidence in the verdict?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2209, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
008
2020 Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. ProVen Mgmt. 2020-04-10 2020-10-30   Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err when it held that including an assertion of procedural error in a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision turns such a petition, in substance, into a request for a writ of common law mandamus under Murrell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 376 Md. 170 (2003)? 2) Did CSA err when it held that a petition for judicial review that sought reversal of an administrative decision was, in substance, in the nature of a mandamus action merely because the administrative hearing and administrative decision were alleged to have been performed in a procedurally inadequate manner?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 610, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
001 Misc.
2020 United Bank Buckingham   2020-10-30   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Questions: (1) Whether the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act, see Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 15-201 et seq., which generally applies to “conveyances” made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, reaches a change in life insurance beneficiary, particularly in light of Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 16-111(d)? (2) Whether Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 15-102 grants a guardian of property the authority to change the beneficiaries of life insurance policies?
 
006 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Sperling   2020-11-05   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
013
2020 State Johnson 2020-06-05 2020-11-05   Criminal Law – Did CSA err in denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider and remand because the trial court is entitled to reconfigure the sentencing package to account for the reversal of Respondent’s involuntary manslaughter conviction regardless of the reason for reversal?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 109, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
007
2020 Uthus Valley Mill Camp 2020-04-10 2020-11-05   Real Property – Can a person claiming the right to possession against a person in actual peaceable possession of real property bring an action in circuit court for common law trespass to recover possession of the property, when the Maryland legislature has committed such actions for possession to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the district court?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2366, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
009
2020 Clear Channel Outdoor Dept. of Finance 2020-05-08 2020-11-06   Constitutional Law– 1) Is the operation of billboards protected by the First Amendment, thereby subjecting its taxation to heightened scrutiny? 2) Does the Tax single out a single platform for speech or a small group of speakers, thereby subjecting it to heightened scrutiny?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2910, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
012
2020 State McGagh 2020-06-05 2020-11-06   Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when, citing First Amendment and policy-based concerns, it applied a non-deferential, de novo standard of review to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Respondent’s convictions for perjury and false statement? 2) Did CSA err in finding the evidence insufficient to show willful and knowing falsity, and in finding that one witness’s testimony corroborated by surveillance video was insufficient to satisfy the “two-witness rule” for perjury? 3) Was the evidence legally insufficient to support Respondent’s convictions for perjury and/or false statement because the evidence failed to show that the statements were material?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 408, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
092 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Lord   2020-12-03   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
024
2020 State Miller 2020-08-26 2020-12-03   Criminal Law – Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court violated Respondent’s right to confrontation by admitting the results of DNA testing and analysis through a witness who did not author the report of DNA testing and analysis, but who served as its technical reviewer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2053, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
019
2020 Leidig State 2020-07-13 2020-12-03   Constitutional Law – Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it admitted DNA and serological evidence through a witness who did not perform the analysis of the crime scene evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 463, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
015
 
016
 
017
2020 State Sayles, Johnson, & Oxely 2020-07-13 2020-12-04   Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA wrongly conclude that a jury has the power to nullify the verdict and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when, in response to a jury note, it told the jury that it could not resort to jury nullification? 2) If the trial court abused its discretion when it responded to the jury’s inquiries concerning jury nullification, did CSA wrongly conclude that this error prejudiced Respondent?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 2794, 2797, & 2798, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
018
2020 Impac Mortgage Holdings Timm 2020-07-13 2020-12-04   Corporations & Associations – 1) Did CSA err by construing the amendments to Petitioner’s corporate charter as unambiguous without addressing whether Petitioner’s construction is reasonable? 2) Did the trial court err by applying contra proferentem and granting summary judgment despite evidence of the parties’ intent and material fact disputes without giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2119, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
014
2020 Travelocity.com Comptroller 2020-07-13 2020-12-07   Tax-General – 1) Did Petitioner’s activities in Maryland during the periods covered by the assessment (the “Periods in Issue”) result in the provision of a “right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest,” within the meaning of Maryland Code, Tax-General Article (“T-G”) § 11-101(k)(1)(ii)? 2) Was Petitioner a “Vendor” during the Periods in Issue within the meaning of T-G § 11-101(o)? 3) Did the Tax Court fail to give effect to Chapter 3, Acts of 2015, which altered the definitions of “Tangible personal property” and “Vendor”? 4) Did the Tax Court err in determining that the base for calculating the sales tax had to be reduced by the “Tax Recovery Charge”? 5) Did the Tax Court err in deciding that T-G § 13-1102(b) did not apply to permit Respondent to assess sales taxes beyond the four-year limitation period? 6) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner sold its customers the right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest, a transaction subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(ii), when the customers reserved the room on Petitioner’s website and paid Petitioner for the room reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 7) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner rented to its customers, on a short-term basis, passenger cars or other vehicles, a transaction that is subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(i) when the customers paid Petitioner for the rental car reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 8) Did the Tax Court correctly conclude that because Petitioner sold tangible personal property located in Maryland, Petitioner was required to collect and remit sales-and-use tax as a vendor engaged in the business of a retail vendor or out-of-state vendor under T-G § 11-701? 9) Did the Tax Court err in holding that sales-and-use tax was not due on the lump sum fee for service charges and estimated taxes that Petitioner charged its customers, when the sales-and-use tax was not separately stated from the service charges and the portion attributable to the estimated tax was not remitted to Respondent but paid to a third party?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 508 & 2540, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
020
2020 In re: Special Investigation Misc. 1064   2020-07-13 2020-12-07   Court of Special Appeals, No. 3463, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
 
021
2020 Hunt State 2020-08-13 2020-12-08   Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the fact that Joseph Kopera’s false credentials were discovered over a decade later by another attorney in a different case was enough for the trial court to find that Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to act with due diligence, as is required to prevail under Md. Code §8-301(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Does CSA’s holding in this case conflict with this Court’s “considered dicta” in State v. Hunt, 443 Md. 238 (2015)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2429, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
022
2020 K. Hovnanian Homes Havre de Grace 2020-08-13 2020-12-08   Municipal Corporations – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a “strong mayor” city charter abrogates the common law of municipal contracts, which gives a city council power to enter into contracts by motion or resolution without the mayor’s signature? 2) Did CSA err by holding that under the separation of powers doctrine, a “strong mayor” city charter invalidates a recoupment agreement entered into by a city council without the mayor’s signature?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 796, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]