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
020
2020 In re: Special Investigation Misc. 1064   2020-07-13 2020-12-07
[Oral Arguments]


These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.

(Oral arguments unsealed 2022-05-16)
2021-06-10
[Opinion

(Opinion unsealed 2022-05-16)

2021-06-10
[Order]


 
Court of Special Appeals, No. 3463, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
 
005
2021 State Galicia 2021-04-09 2021-09-13
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) When a statement against penal interest inculpates a third party, but not the defendant, does the trial court abuse its discretion when it does not allow the defendant to elicit evidence about the statement? 2) Is expert testimony required to explain to a fact-finder that a “gap” in the “location history” records for a Google account could have been caused by the account holder turning off the “location history” service?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3350, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
003 Misc.
2021 Lyles Santander Consumer USA   2021-10-04
[Oral Arguments]

These arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-05-13
[Opinion]
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: If a credit grantor is found to have knowingly violated Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions ("CLEC"), Maryland Code Annotated, Commercial Law §§12-1001, et seq., does CLEC § 12-1018(b) require the credit grantor to return three times: (1) all amounts collected by the credit grantor in excess of the principal amount financed; (2) only those amounts collected that the borrower contends violate the CLEC (in this case, the convenience fee); or (3) some other amount.
006
2021 Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. Thornton Mellon, LLC 2021-05-11 2021-10-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-04-28
[Opinion]
Tax-Property – 1) Is a tax sale certificate no longer assignable once a court enters judgment foreclosing the right of redemption? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that a tax sale certificate is assignable after foreclosure, was the purported assignment here nonetheless invalid for failure to comply with provisions of law relating to the short assignment of mortgages? 3) Is a judgment foreclosing the right of redemption non-assignable? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that a foreclosure judgment is assignable, must the assignment be filed and docketed in the circuit court, not merely attached as an exhibit to a motion, before the assignee can enforce the judgment in the assignee’s name?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1940, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
015
2021 State Matthews 2021-06-22 2021-11-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Did CSA err by holding that an expert witness created an “analytical gap,” and thus rendered her testimony inadmissible as a matter of law, by acknowledging the limitations of her scientific methodology?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3280, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
014
2021 Amaya DGS Construction 2021-06-22 2021-11-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1857, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
017
2021 Rojas F.R. General Contractors 2021-06-22 2021-11-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report? 4) Did CSA err in importing the federal PPA compensability requirements in determining whether a benefit was conferred on Respondents for the purpose of proving a Maryland common law unjust enrichment claim, especially when Respondents failed to move for judgment on that claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1529, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
018
2021 Spiegel Bd. of Ed., Howard Cnty. 2021-06-22 2021-11-09
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Education – 1) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors 11 years of age and older from selecting a member holding a binding voting position on the Howard County Board of Education, whether by election, appointment, or any other means? 2) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors from holding the office of a binding voting position on the Board of Education of Howard County, a board which possesses general governmental power?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 117, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
005 Misc.
2021 Murphy Liberty Mutual Insurance   2021-12-03
[Oral Arguments]
2022-04-25
[Opinion]
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: Did the Court of Appeals act within its enabling authority under, inter alia, the State Constitution and the State Declaration of Rights when its April 24, 2020 Administrative Order tolled Maryland's statutes of limitation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
024
2021 Becker Falls Road Comm. Ass'n. 2021-08-25 2021-12-03
[Oral Arguments]
  Zoning & Planning – In order for collateral estoppel to bar a subsequently filed development plan, must the two plans be found to be identical?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 436, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
023
2021 State Jordan 2021-08-02 2021-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – Is it harmless error to fail to propound a voir dire question regarding a defendant’s right to remain silent and not testify where the defendant actually testifies?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2594, Sept. Term, 2019
041 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance O'Neill   2021-12-06
[Oral Arguments]

 
2022-03-09
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
006 Misc.
2021 Nagle & Zaller, P.C. Delegall   2021-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: The Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Md. Code Ann., Commercial Law §§12-301, et seq., applies to consumer "loans" made by "lenders," and requires a "person engaged in the business of making loans" to be licensed. Based upon the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, is Nagle & Zaller, P.C. subject to the statute??
025
2021 Small MS4 Coal. Dept. of Environment 2021-08-25 2021-12-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Environmental Law – 1) Has Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) unlawfully made the Queen Anne’s County (“County”) responsible for the discharges from independent third parties and nonpoint source runoff that do not discharge from the County’s MS4? 3) Has MDE unlawfully imposed requirements beyond the maximum extent practicable in the General Permit?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1865, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
027
2021 In Re: D.D.   2021-08-28 2022-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Does the scent of marijuana provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop to determine if someone possesses a criminal amount of marijuana or could be cited for civil violations of marijuana laws? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the stop was constitutional, was the frisk unlawful because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that Respondent was armed and dangerous?


Court of Special Appeals, No. 2616, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
034
2021 Gambrill Bd. of Ed., Dorchester Cnty. 2021-09-13 2022-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the federal Coverdell Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7941, et seq., preempt Maryland law and apply to preclude any liability on the part of either school personnel or boards of education in connection with the negligence of teachers and school administrators? 2) Did the federal Coverdell Act shield the individual Respondents from liability for their negligent actions where the Respondents failed to introduce any evidence at all that Maryland accepts the prerequisite federal funding required for the Coverdell Act to apply?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 886, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
031
2021 Farmer State 2021-08-25 2022-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Constitutional Law – 1) As part of a juvenile lifer’s constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as recognized in Carter v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018), does a juvenile lifer have a federal constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission? 2) As part of a juvenile lifer’s constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as recognized in Carter, does a juvenile lifer have a Maryland constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission? 3) Assuming a juvenile lifer has a constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission, does that Maryland Parole system allow for the effective exercise of that right? 4) Is Petitioner’s sentence illegal pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2528, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)
030
2021 Jedlicka State 2021-08-25 2022-01-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Constitutional Law – 1) How should a sentencing court evaluate where on the McCullough “spectrum,” Carter v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018), a juvenile offender falls, and how does that analysis determine what term-of-years sentence or period of parole ineligibility is too long to comport with the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 60 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)? 2) What is the scope of the individualized sentencing requirement for juveniles who have committed homicide and did the lower court err in upholding Petitioner’s concurrent 60 year aggregate term and life suspend all but 60 years sentences, imposed without an individualized sentencing proceeding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2471, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
026
2021 Smith State 2021-08-25 2022-01-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) When a petitioner satisfies the substantive requirements for receiving coram nobis relief – i.e., they have exhausted all other available remedies, have proven that the convictions they are challenging suffer from constitutional or other fundamental error, and have established that the challenged convictions create a significant collateral consequence – to what extent does the petitioner still need to show that there are “compelling circumstances” warranting relief? 2) Where Petitioner met the established prerequisites for obtaining coram nobis relief, did the circuit court err in ruling that, under dicta in Coleman v. State, 219 Md.App. 339 (2014), there are not “compelling circumstances” to vacate Petitioner’s convictions because, inter alia, the legislative purpose behind the creation of Petitioner’s significant collateral consequence (i.e., her inability to obtain a license as a mortgage originator) takes precedence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2534, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
035
2021 Howling State 2021-09-29 2022-02-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-04-28
[Opinion]

One opinion was issued for this case and No. 36.
Criminal Law – 1) In a question of first impression, did the trial court err by giving a jury instruction that omitted a scienter requirement for the offenses charged, contrary to the holding of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), on the presumptions in law in the equivalent Federal Statute, the Rule of Lenity, and this Court’s decisions in Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638 (1988) and Chow v. State, 391 Md. 431 (2006)? 2) Under the facts of this case, in which no evidence was adduced that Petitioner was previously notified by government authorities that he was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm in Maryland, did the trial court err in giving the pre-Rehaif pattern jury instructions lacking scienter requirements?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2087, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
036
2021 Abongnelah State 2021-09-29 2022-02-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-04-28
[Opinion]

One opinion was issued for this case and No. 35.

Criminal Law – 1) In a matter of first impression, did CSA err by holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict Petitioner of illegally possessing a regulated firearm where the State failed to prove he had knowledge of his prohibited status – i.e., that he was a convicted felon – because that result was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the analogous Federal statute in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), and was at odds with this Court’s precedent? 2) Did CSA err by upholding the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that Petitioner had knowledge of his prohibited status? 3) Was the knowledge issue raised herein adequately preserved where both trial and appellate counsel argued that Rehaif required knowledge of prohibited status and appellate counsel clarified in Appellant’s Reply Brief that prohibited status meant Petitioner’s status as a felon?



Court of Special Appeals, No. 2561, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
038
2021 Anne Arundel Cnty. 808 Bestgate Realty 2021-10-12 2022-02-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Local Codes -- 1) Is CSA’s interpretation of § 17-11-207 of the Anne Arundel County Code in conflict with the County Charter and the County budget process as it relates to the funding of public improvements? 2) Did the Court of Special Appeals abuse its discretion under Maryland Rule 8-131(a) in requiring remand on an issue not raised or briefed by the parties nor mentioned in the agency order under appeal, and not in dispute?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1156, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
032
2021 Gross State 2021-09-13 2022-02-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Under Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (1975), did CSA err when it reviewed for harmless error and only analyzed the evidence put forth by the State when the Petitioner controverted the evidence at trial through multiple witnesses, including experts? 2) Under Dorsey, did CSA err when it analyzed an improperly admitted prior consistent statement for its cumulativeness since, although prior consistent statements are cumulative, it is their consistency that is the very nature of the harm? 3) Did CSA err in relying on State v. Lawson, 389 Md. 570 (2005), when it held that the social worker and doctor who gave hearsay testimony under Maryland Code § 11-304 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article “fell within the category of person contemplated by the statute” since Lawson merely affirmed the use of social worker hearsay testimony where the worker was “informed of the abuse by police officers” and here there was evidence that both witnesses were directed by law enforcement to act thus, for the purposes of the interview, the social worker and doctor were outside “the course of the person’s profession?” 4) Did CSA wrongly conclude the June 2015 video was not admissible under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1413, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
039
2021 Aleti Metropolitan Baltimore, LLC, et al. 2021-10-12 2022-02-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Municipal Codes – 1) Does Article 13, § 5.4(a)(2) of the Baltimore City Code create an implied private right of action to recover a return of rent that a landlord was prohibited from collecting or retaining? 2) Is the money had and received cause of action available to a tenant to recover a return of rent that a landlord was prohibited from collecting or retaining by operation of § 5.4(a)(2)? 3) Is the breach of contract cause of action available to a tenant when a landlord agrees to abide by § 5.4(a)(2) and not accept, collect, or retain rent if the property is not licensed, but then collects, accepts, and retains rent in violation of § 5.4(a)2)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 459, Sept. Term, 2020 [opinion]
029
2021 Malvo State 2021-08-25 2022-02-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Constitutional Law – 1) Under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which barred life without parole “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility,” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734 (2016), do the six life without parole sentences imposed on Petitioner violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 2) Does Miller apply to Maryland’s sentencing scheme, which gives the sentencing court discretion to impose life without parole? 3) Did the sentencing court violate Miller by failing to consider Petitioner’s youth and imposing life without parole for crimes which did not reflect permanent incorrigibility? 4) Did the sentencing court violate Article 25 by imposing life without parole without finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner was permanently incorrigible? 5) Does Article 25 categorically bar life without parole sentences for juveniles? 6) Did the trial court err in ruling that the life without parole sentences imposed on Petitioner are not “illegal” under Maryland Rule 4-345(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1436, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)
040
2021 Wadsworth Sharma 2021-10-12 2022-02-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute, specifically, § 3-902(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, permit wrongful death beneficiaries to recover from a health care provider where the actions of the heath care provider shortened the terminally ill decedent’s life?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1703, Sept. Term, 2019 [opinion]
045
2021 Harris State 2021-11-10 2022-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, is a common law felony murder an unintended homicide that, if perpetrated by the operation of a motor vehicle, has been preempted by the manslaughter by automobile statute, thereby precluding the common law offense from serving as a basis for a crime in Maryland? 2) Did CSA err in holding that a juvenile offender who is convicted of felony murder, and who is sentenced to a term of life with the possibility of parole, is not entitled to a constitutionally-heightened sentencing procedure to include consideration of the juvenile’s youth, the attendant circumstances, and penological justifications for a life sentence upon a juvenile for an unintentional killing?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1515, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
046
2021 Richardson State 2021-11-10 2022-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search after concluding that the Petitioner had abandoned the property, i.e., a backpack, when both Petitioner and a police officer reached for the property at the same time, and when the police officer picked up the property first, Petitioner ran away? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the search of a cell phone found in the backpack pursuant to a search warrant based on its conclusion that the warrant satisfied the particularity requirement or, in the alternative, that the officers relied on the search warrant in good faith?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2386, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
057 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Silbiger   2022-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
 
2022-05-26
[Opinion]
 
Attorney disciplinary matter.
011 Misc.
2021 Assanah-Carroll Law Offices of Edward J. Maher   2022-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Questions: (1) Can a tenant who paid rent to a landlord in Baltimore City who lacked a license pursuant to Baltimore City Code, Art. 13 § 5-4 maintain a lawsuit under either the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (the “MCDCA”) or the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (the “MCPA”) to recover the rent paid without a showing of any damages separate from the rental payment itself? (2) Does a currently licensed landlord violate either the MCDCA or the MCPA by collecting rent from a tenant or pursuing the ejectment actions against a tenant who has failed to pay rent during a prior period when the landlord, or a prior landlord, was not licensed under Baltimore City Code, Art. 13 § 5-4, where the tenant does not allege any damages separate from the rental payment itself?
063
2021 Prince George's Cnty. Thurston 2022-02-11 2022-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
2022-03-07
[PC Order]
Issue – Local Codes – Is a Resolution, having the force and effect of law, a valid measure to adopt a decennial County Council Redistricting Plan?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1865, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
043
2021 Frankel Deane 2021-11-10 2022-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Did CSA err by failing to remand a medical malpractice case for application of the new Daubert evidentiary standard when considering the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the reliability of neurosensory testing and medical expert inferences of injury and medical negligence resulting therefrom, and instead concluding that Daubert was not invoked and remanding with instruction for a full trial on the merits? 2) Alternatively, did CSA err by holding that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the expert testimony?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 218, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
044
2021 Spevak Montgomery Cnty. 2021-11-10 2022-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Labor & Employment – 1) Does CSA’s holding – that when an employee who is subject to the provisions of Maryland Code § 9-610 of the Labor & Employment Article (“LE”) receives a service-connected total disability retirement from his or her employer, the offset provision applies to any permanent total or permanent partial workers’ compensation benefits the employee is awarded for injuries or diseases related to that same employment – contradict this Court’s holding in Reger v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Education, 455 Md. 68 (2017) and similar cases, which held that the term “similar” in the statute means that the benefits arose from the “same injury” as opposed to the “same employment”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 893, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
042
2021 Williams Dimensions Health Corp. 2021-11-10 2022-03-08
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Does Maryland law require “direct testimony” of Petitioner’s subjective belief that hospitals employ physicians through whom hospitals provide medical services in order to establish apparent agency, or can other testimonial and documentary evidence establish this element of apparent agency by inference? 2) Did the trial court err in granting the hospital’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and did CSA err in affirming this judgment?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 36, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
001 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Proctor   2022-03-08
[Oral Arguments]

 
2022-03-09
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
069 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Wemple   2022-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
048
2021 Admin. Off. of Courts Abell Fnd. 2021-12-08 2022-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Maryland Rules – Did CSA misinterpret the administrative-record exemption of Maryland Rule 16-905(f)(3)(B)(i), which directs a custodian of judicial records to deny inspection of an administrative record “prepared by or for a judge” that is “purely administrative in nature but not a local rule, policy, or directive” and is “not filed with the clerk and not required to be filed with the clerk,” when CSA concluded that the exemption did not apply to a mainframe edit table correlating each District Court judge with an alphanumeric code and ordered disclosure of the mainframe edit table?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1955, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
047
2021 CX Reinsurance Co. Johnson 2021-12-08 2022-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in refusing to interpret insurance policies like other contracts, concluding that “sound public policy dictates that liability insurance policies should be construed to protect injured tort claimants” notwithstanding their terms? 2) Did CSA err in holding that all claimants who have asserted or will assert claims are intended beneficiaries of insurance policies, with vested interests in those policies from the date of their alleged injuries, and have the same rights under those policies as claimants who have obtained judgments or entered into settlements? 3) Did CSA err in holding that an insured and its insurer cannot resolve litigation by entering a settlement, in good faith, that modifies or reduces insurance coverage without the consent of all current and future tort claimants?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 691, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
049
2021 Irwin Industrial Tool Pifer 2021-12-08 2022-04-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Evidence – 1) Did CSA err in reversing the authenticity threshold applied by the trial court for the admissibility of items purchased from the internet? 2) Did CSA err in ignoring the alternative grounds for summary judgment encompassed in the trial court’s order?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1849, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
056
2021 State Bustillo 2022-01-11 2022-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in holding that a trial court’s failure to comply with Maryland Rule 4-346(a) when imposing a period of probation results in an “illegal sentence” within the contemplation of Maryland Rule 4-345(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2614, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
025 Misc.
2021 Petition of Fisher, et al.     2022-04-13
[Oral Arguments]
2022-04-13
[Order]
Petition of Mark N. Fisher, Nicholaus R. Kipke, and Kathryn Szeliga

In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State

 
026 Misc.
2021 Petition of Thiam, et al.     2022-04-13
[Oral Arguments]
2022-04-13
[Order]
Petition of Brenda Thiam, Wayne Hartman, and Patricia Shoemaker

In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State

 
027 Misc.
2021 Petition of Wilson     2022-04-13
[Oral Arguments]
2022-04-13
[Order]
Petition of Seth Edward Wilson

In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State

 
059
2021 Huggins State 2022-02-09 2022-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err by raising and deciding, on its own initiative, that Petitioner waived his objection to the denial of his motion to suppress where the State did not argue waiver on appeal? 2) If a pretrial motion to suppress is heard and denied and at trial when the evidence is offered by the State defense counsel says “no objection,” does counsel’s statement constitute a waiver, so that the issue is not preserved for review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 816, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
058
2021 Madison CopyCat Building 2022-01-31 2022-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
2022-05-10
[PC Order]
Real Property – Did the trial court err in construcing Md. Code § 8-208(a) and § 8-402(c) of the Real Property Article to find that the term for a tenant living in an unlicensed dwelling without a written lease as one year that becomes month-to-month when the tenant accepted the landlord’s written offer to renew her tenancy for an additional year and the landlord, in violation of § 8-208(a), did not provide the tenant with a written lease after the expiration of the year term?

Circuit Court for Baltimore City (No. 24-C-20-004249)
062
2021 Garcia State 2022-02-09 2022-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Is it legally possible to be an accessory before the fact to non-premeditated intent to kill murder? 2) Must a conviction be vacated if the jury considered a legally impossible theory of liability?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2355, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
053
2021 Chesapeake Bay Found. CREG Westport I 2022-01-11 2022-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Environmental Law – 1) Do the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act require an opportunity for direct appeal of an approved forest conservation plan? 2) Does the approval of a forest conservation plan constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1063, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
057
2021 Hancock Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. 2022-01-11 2022-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Does an employer’s duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring an independent contractor extend to employees of the independent contractor? 2) When a contractor recognizes dangerous job site conditions, does the contractor owe a duty to employees of a co-contractor to identify, warn against, or mitigate the hazard?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 440, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
072 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Maiden   2022-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
 
2022-05-11
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
055
2021 Upper Marlboro Prince George's Cnty. Cncl. 2022-01-11 2022-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Land Use – 1) Was CR-72-2019 a final appealable decision that had to be challenged within 30 days of finality as required by Md. Code § 22-407 of the Land Use Article? 2) Was Petitioner’s appeal of CR-98-2019 sufficient to challenge the deficiencies in CR-72-2019? 3) Was the decision of the County Council sitting as the District Council deficient in setting for the purpose and scope of the minor amendment in the initiating resolution (CR-72-2019) as required by Section 27-642 of the Prince George’s County Code?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 801, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
052
2021 Buarque de Macedo Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford 2022-01-11 2022-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Does Md. Code § 5-806 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article render the household exclusion clause in an umbrella policy void, up to the limits of motor vehicle liability coverage, as to motor vehicle personal injury or wrongful death claims of unemancipated children or estates of such children against their parent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1619, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
061
2021 Smith State 2022-02-09 2022-06-01   Criminal Law – In a reported case of first impression, did CSA wrongly hold that the courtroom bailiff’s face mask depicting the ‘thin blue line’ was not inherently prejudicial to Petitioner?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1273, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
051
2021 Thornton Mellon Frederick Cnty. Sheriff 2021-12-08 2022-06-01   Real Property – 1) Do sheriffs who are commanded to enforce writs of possession issued in a tax sale proceeding have the authority to adopt and impose on tax sale purchasers a “Mover Policy,” which policy requires a tax sale purchaser to provide, at the time of the writ of possession, a crew of movers and moving equipment sufficient to remove the prior owner’s personal property that remains inside the property? 2) Do sheriffs who are commanded to enforce writs of possession issued in a tax sale proceeding have the authority to adopt and impose on tax sale purchasers a “Weather Policy,” which policy allows sheriffs to decline to serve a writ of possession during inclement weather? 3) Where the General Assembly has codified statutes governing the eviction process in tax sale proceedings, do sheriffs have the “fairly-implied power” to enact their own policies concerning the eviction process? 4) Did CSA err in holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the content of the policies adopted by sheriffs?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2224, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
054
2021 Rainey State 2022-01-11 2022-06-01   Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, can a suspect’s change in appearance (in this case, a change in hairstyle) at some point between the time of the crime and the time of his arrest, support a destruction-of-evidence jury instruction? 2) Under the four-inference test adopted in Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 (2006), consciousness-of-guilt jury instructions may not be given unless evidence supports all four of the necessary inferences. As a matter of first impression, is a trial judge required to consider the four inferences on the record before giving a consciousness-of-guilt jury instruction, here a destruction-of-evidence instruction? 3) Even if the trial court is not required to state its reasoning regarding the four inferences on the record: (a) was it improper to give the instruction in this case where the evidence did not support the four inferences because petitioner had not been charged or arrested at the time of his haircut and there was no evidence that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation, and (b) is reversal required where there is no indication in the record that the trial court considered the four Thompson inferences? 4) Did CSA err in holding that although “it is preferable, in all cases in which a defendant has allegedly changed his appearance in order to avoid identification, to employ a custom instruction that focuses on the change of appearance as potential evidence of consciousness of guilt,” the giving of the destruction-of-evidence instruction was harmless in this case because a different modified instruction that does not include the language “You have heard evidence that the defendant destroyed evidence” could have been given but was not? 5) Was giving the destruction-of-evidence jury instruction harmless error where the pattern instruction was not modified, the prosecutor relied on the instruction in closing argument, the jury asked multiple questions during deliberations regarding changes in Petitioner’s appearance, and significant evidence pointed to the guilt of another party?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3094, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
007 AG
2021 Attorney Grievance White   2022-06-02   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
060
2021 In Re: T.K.   2022-02-09 2022-06-02   Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As a matter of first impression, under the discretionary language of Md. Code § 3-819(e) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings (“CJP”) article, which provides that the “court may award custody to the other parent” after sustaining petition allegations against only one parent and before dismissing the case, what standards govern this exercise of discretion and what, if any, process must be afforded to the custodial parent prior to a transfer of full legal and physical custody of the child to the noncustodial parent? 2) When determining whether to transfer custody of a child to a noncustodial parent under CJP §3-819(e) before dismissing the case, does the best-interests-of-the-child standard apply and what facts or factors must the court consider in making a best interests determination? 3) When requested, is a custodial parent entitled to a contested dispositional hearing where they can present evidence concerning whether it is in the child’s best interest to transfer full custody to the noncustodial parent under CJP §3-819(e) or may a juvenile court transfer full of custody of the child based solely on the sustained petition allegations and conflicting proffers? 4) Does In re R.S., 470 Md. 380 (2020), compel a juvenile court, once petition allegations have been sustained against a custodial parent only, to award full custody of a child to the noncustodial parent over the objection and request for custody of the custodial parent and despite the discretionary language in CJP §3-819(e)? 5) Was the evidence sufficient to transfer full custody of T.K. from mother, his custodial parent since birth and throughout the CINA case to his out-of-state, noncustodial father under the findings that mother agreed to and where mother also proffered that she had witnesses available to testify to facts supporting that father was not able to provide proper care to T.K. and that it was not in T.K.’s best interest to be transferred to father’s custody?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 292, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported)