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
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)
006
2020 Fowlkes Choudhry 2020-03-30 2020-10-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-03-26
[Opinion]
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]
001
2020 Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Selective Way Ins. 2020-03-11 2020-10-02
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-04-01
[Opinion]
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
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-04-01
[Opinion]


2020-10-06
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
063 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Johnson   2020-10-29
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-03-16
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
010
2020 Hector Bank of New York Mellon 2020-05-08 2020-10-29
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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]
009
2020 Clear Channel Outdoor Dept. of Finance 2020-05-08 2020-11-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-03-15
[Opinion]
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]
024
2020 State Miller 2020-08-26 2020-12-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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)
018
2020 Impac Mortgage Holdings Timm 2020-07-13 2020-12-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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

Please note: Oral Arguments in this case are sealed by order of the Court of Appeals.

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Court of Special Appeals, No. 3463, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
 
021
2020 Hunt State 2020-08-13 2020-12-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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)
028
2020 State Ablonczy 2020-10-06 2021-01-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Criminal Procedure – Should accepting a jury as ultimately empaneled waive any prior objection to the trial court’s refusal to propound voir dire questions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3219, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported).
026
2020 Conner State 2020-09-14 2021-01-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-03-26
[Opinion]
Code of Judicial Conduct – Given that Drug Court is a non-adversarial, team-based treatment program in which participants are expected to openly discuss relapses and other setbacks in their recovery, should a judge who supervised a defendant in Drug Court generally recuse from the defendant’s subsequent violation of probation proceeding when the conduct that allegedly violated the conditions of probation was the subject of Drug Court hearings, meetings, and correspondence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 134, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
027
2020 Wheeling Selene Finance 2020-09-14 2021-01-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Real Property – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a defendant’s violation of Md. Code § 7-113 of the Real Property Article does not give rise to a cause of action unless the protected resident physically vacates the residential property? 2) Did CSA err in holding that a consumer’s claim for emotional damage, such as fear, anxiety, anger, and accompanying physical manifestations, does not adequately allege an injury to state a private cause of action under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”)? 3) Did CSA err in holding that attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of a defendant’s unfair and deceptive misrepresentations made in violation of the MCPA do not constitute a recoverable injury supporting a private cause of action?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2128, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
023
2020 Clark State 2020-08-13 2021-01-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – When a defendant, who was found in possession of a single firearm, is convicted of both possession of an assault weapon, in violation of Md. Code §4-303(a)(2) of the Criminal Law Article (“Crim. Law”), and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony involving a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of Crim. Law §5-622(b), must the convictions and sentences be merged?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 430, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
006 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Dailey   2021-01-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
003 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Fineblum   2021-02-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
009 Misc.
2020 Trott State   2021-02-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Question: Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress?
033
2020 Merryman & FOP Univ. of Baltimore 2020-10-06 2021-02-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
2021-03-26
[Opinion]
Administrative Law – 1) Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have jurisdiction when the parties have contractually agreed to submit grievances regarding the interpretation of their collective bargaining agreement to the Office for adjudication? 2) Did CSA err in finding that because the remedy would involve awarding additional leave hours, the grievance constituted a complaint pertaining to the “general level of fringe benefits” prohibited by Md. Code §13-201(c) of the Education Article?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 649, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
036
2020 Cherry Baltimore City 2020-11-10 2021-02-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Municipal Codes – 1) Did the trial court err in its reliance on Appellee’s actuarial expert who, in calculating breach of contract damages, failed to estimate what retirement benefit increases would have been owed by implementing the statutory plan contract as written and applied for decades? 2) Did the trial court err in computing breach of contract damages when it misinterpreted the actuarial funding required under Appellee’s statutory pension contract? 3) Did the trial court err in holding that Appellee did not breach its statutory pension contract with the active employee members of the retirement plan by the passage of Baltimore City Ordinance 10-306, which reduced promised pension benefits?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 188, Sept. Term, 2020 (pending)
008 Misc.
2020 In re: Walker & Walker     2021-02-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-03-30
[Opinion]
Certified Question from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland
Question: Can a community association’s lien perfected under the Maryland Contract Lien Act, Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. §§ 14-201 et seq., secure unpaid damages, costs of collection, late charges, and attorney’s fees arising under the association’s governing documents that accrue subsequent to the recordation of the lien?
 
032
2020 Lawrence State 2020-10-06 2021-02-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Is wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about one’s person a strict liability crime?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 319, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
037
2020 State Morris 2020-11-10 2021-02-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does the trial court have discretion to admit testimony regarding a witness’ fear in the absence of a prior inconsistent statement by that witness? 2) If the trial court has that discretion, does the trial court have the discretion to admit testimony regarding the witness’ fear on direct examination in an appropriate case? 3) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in admitting brief testimony regarding fear, which made no mention of Respondent, during the direct examination of two witnesses?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2603, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
042
2020 Tengeres State 2020-11-10 2021-02-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s timely Motion to Reinstate, where good cause was shown, pursuant to the liberal standard for reinstatement in Md. Rule 7-112? 2) Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s due process rights by dismissing her de novo appeal for failure to appear at a status conference, where no critical issues would be decided?

(No. C-21-CR-20-000012, Circuit Court for Washington County)
054 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Viladegut   Motion to waive oral argument granted.
 
2021-03-29
[Opinion]

2021-03-01
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
038
2020 Cain Midland Funding 2020-11-10 2021-03-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer? 3) Does Federal tolling under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(d) or class action tolling from a prior Federal action apply to a subsequent Maryland state action? 4) Did CSA have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s non-final orders?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1805, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
039
2020 Gambrell Midland Funding 2020-11-10 2021-03-04
[Oral Arguments]


These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1939, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)
043
2020 Nationstar Mortgage Kemp 2020-11-23 2021-03-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Commercial Law – 1) Does the definition of a “lender” in Md. Code § 12-101(f) of the Commercial Law Article (“CL”) as “a person who makes a loan” include a mortgage purchaser and a mortgage servicer who do not make loans? 2) Is the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act limited to policing methods of collection and does it exempt claims for collector’s unlawful claims for amounts barred by Maryland law? 3) Does CL § 14-202(8) exclude novel collection practices?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2652, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
030
2020 Chavis Blibaum & Assoc. 2020-10-06 2021-03-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Commercial Law – 1) Does using a wage garnishment to collect excess post-judgment interest and post-judgment filing fees constitute a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code §14-202(8) of the Commercial Law Article?  2) Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for class certification, without conducting a hearing, when the undisputed evidence presented to the Court established that the identity of every class member can be established from the Respondent’s records?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 334, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
012 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Neverdon   2021-03-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
041
2020 Mahai State 2020-11-10 2021-03-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Constitutional Law – 1) Does Article IV, § 14A of the Maryland Constitution, which authorizes CSA to exercise only intermediate appellate jurisdiction, preclude CSA from exercising final appellate jurisdiction by issuing a summary denial of an application for leave to appeal without addressing the issues raised, which has been held to bar further appellate review under Md. Code § 12-202 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”). 2) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to jury instructions regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? 3) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to voir dire questions that shifted the burden of determining bias to the venirepersons? 4) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to file a motion for modification of sentence and a motion for sentence review?

Court of Special Appeals, ALA No. 207, Sept. Term, 2020
035
2020 Whittington State 2020-11-10 2021-03-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA, in a case of first impression, err in holding that the placement and use of a GPS tracking device was legal because a GPS Order issued under Md. Code § 1-203.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article satisfied the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applied in this case? 3) Did the issuing judge have a substantial basis for finding probable cause from exclusively circumstantial evidence of Petitioner’s criminal activities that provided a sufficient nexus to support a warrant to search his home, car, and person?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2591, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
047
2020 Esteppe Balt. City Police Dept. 2020-12-07 2021-04-08
[Opinion]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Under the first prong of the scope of employment test, does a police officer act in the scope of employment when he performs traditional law enforcement functions with mixed motives? 2) Did CSA err when it declined to rule upon Respondent’s argument that Petitioner should be judicially estopped from arguing that the officer’s motivation was professional when, at the liability trial, Petitioner argued repeatedly that the officer’s motivation was purely personal and the trial court accepted that argument in order to find the officer liable for civil conspiracy?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3128, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
072 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance McCarthy   2021-04-09
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
046
2020 Wallace State 2020-12-07 2021-04-09
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) When reviewing whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, is it proper for a reviewing court to evaluate prejudice by determining whether deficient performance would have been ameliorated had the error been brought to the trial court’s attention? 2) Did CSA err in advising post-conviction courts that the cumulative effect theory – i.e., the theory that prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), may be found by considering the collective impact of multiple instances of deficient performance – has “exceedingly narrow” application? 3) Did CSA err in holding that defense counsel’s failure to object to an erroneous instruction on attempted second-degree murder required the reversal of only that conviction, that defense counsel did not prejudice Petitioner when she failed to object to the disclosure to the jury that Petitioner had previously been convicted of a crime of violence, and/or that trial counsel’s failure to object to alleged bad-acts/other-crimes evidence constituted neither deficient performance nor conduct prejudicing Petitioner?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1414, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
011 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Moawad   2021-04-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
049
2020 Riverdale Park Ashkar 2021-01-06 2021-04-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  State Government - 1) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s ruling that Respondent had failed to prove that Petitioner’s business decision was pretextual and not based on discrimination? 2) Did CSA err in directing that the case be remanded so that the jury’s verdict could be reinstated, where the trial court expressly ruled that Respondent had failed to prove damages in any non-speculative manner, and where the verdict is, in any event, subject to a statutory cap lower than the amount of the verdict?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2714, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
040
2020 Wright State 2020-11-10 2021-04-12
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in giving a flight instruction where the sole contested issue in the case was the identity of the person who committed the crime and fled the scene?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 733, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
044
2020 E.N. T.R. 2020-12-07 2021-04-13   Family Law – When a de facto parentship is formed and fostered at the behest of one legal parent without the knowledge or consent of the other legal parent, does the non-consenting parent retain her superior claim to custody, protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, against the de facto parent, thereby requiring the de facto parent to prove that the non-consenting parent is unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1231, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
045
2020 Angel Enterprises Talbot Cnty. 2020-12-07 2021-04-13   Local Codes – 1) Did the Board of Appeals (“Board”) violate Petitioners’ due process rights by requiring Petitioners to bear the burden of proof (including the burdens of persuasion and going forward with the evidence) to explain Respondent’s basis for its actions and also to disprove the propriety and amount of Respondent’s civil penalties? 2) Did the Board err in imposing penalties on a daily, continuing basis, including for days when no violative conduct occurred, and while Petitioners were exercising their right to challenge Respondent’s allegations and attempt to impose penalties? 3) Did the Board err in finding that Respondent has the legal authority to impose continuing violation penalties where the Express Powers Act limits the County’s ability to impose fines and does not authorize penalties for continuing violations? 4) Did the Board err in determining that the civil penalties imposed by Respondent were stayed upon the filing of Petitioners’ appeal pursuant to Talbot County Code §§ 58-12A(3) and 20-6B(3)? 5) Are the civil penalties sought by Respondent unconstitutionally excessive in violation of the Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 6) Should an appellate court decide an issue of judicial estoppel that occurred during the judicial review period after an administrative decision (and not remand to the administrative body for review)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2842, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
010 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Vasiliades   2021-05-06   Attorney disciplinary matter.
048
2020 RDC Melanie Dr. Eppard 2021-01-06 2021-05-06   Real Property – 1) As a matter of first impression, is the Amended Declaration enforceable against Petitioner/Cross-Respondent where the Amended Declaration adds new restrictions and the language of the amendment clause of the Original Declaration does not expressly permit changes which add new restrictions? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in ruling that the Amended Declaration does not add additional restrictions to Lot 6, where it plainly adds new restrictions prohibiting golf course uses and driving ranges? 3) Is the enforcement of the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance,” or any amendment thereto, subject to review on an objective standard? 4) Have Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims that the use of Lot 6 as a driving range will be “noxious or offensive” or cause “annoyance or nuisance” been fully litigated before the Board of Appeals and are those claims precluded by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata? If not, is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to a trial on those issues and claims? 5) Are the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other owners” too vague to be enforced? 6) Does the Original Declaration prohibit golf course uses, driving ranges, or other commercial activity under a uniform plan of development? 7) Is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to summary judgment on the Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims arising from Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (m) of the Original Declaration and from the Zajic Declaration? 8) In this declaratory judgment action, were the trial court and CSA obliged to review each provision of the applicable covenants addressed by the parties in the pleadings and to declare the rights and obligations of the parties based upon the language of the instruments, read together in accordance with their express terms and the intent thereof as stated in the instruments? 9) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to render an analysis whether the Original Declarations, by their terms, intended only a residential and agricultural use subdivision? 10) Did the trial court and CSA err by declaring that the issues arising under the Zajic Declaration were moot under the circumstances of this case? 11) Did the trial court and CSA err in their interpretation that the Original Declaration permits a boundary line adjustment with a non-subdivision lot for the purpose of permitting resort and golf course uses on land intended for only residential and agricultural use? 12) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to address Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ request for injunctive relief in light of their conclusion that the Amended Declaration is a valid prohibition of driving range development?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1146, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
050
2020 Madrid State 2021-02-08 2021-05-06   Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the defense of duress was “unavailable … as a matter of law” to Petitioner because of his gang involvement? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of “some evidence” required to generate the defense of duress? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress his statement to police because: (a) the interrogating officer’s statements leading to Petitioner’s confession constituted an impermissible inducement; (b) Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that Petitioner, a minor with no prior experience with the criminal justice system, knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights following a 40-second advisement of his rights which did not include a written waiver; (3) under the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner’s confession was involuntary?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1937, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
013 Misc.
2020 First United Corp. Driver Opportunity Partners   2021-05-07   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: Does Md. Code Ann., Fin. Inst. § 3-314 imply a private right of action?
 
053
2020 Kidder State 2021-02-08 2021-05-07   Criminal Law – Did CSA err by upholding the trial court’s method of jury selection, which was disapproved but allowed in the Court’s reported decision in Williams v. State, 246 Md.App. 308 (2020), whereby the trial court excluded prospective jurors from the venire based on shared characteristics, without a finding of bias?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3160, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
071 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Brooks   2021-05-10   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
055
2020 Mainor State 2021-02-08 2021-05-10   Criminal Law – Did the trial court abuse its discretion and violate Petitioner’s right to present information in mitigation of punishment where the court insisted that petitioner be sentenced before it discharged the jury and refused to postpone sentencing for either a presentence investigation or the appearance and testimony of Petitioner’s mother on his behalf?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1068, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
025
2020 Lee WinnCompanies 2020-09-14 2021-05-10   Real Property – 1) Did the Circuit Court commit an error of law in affirming the District Court’s denial of a motion for a new hearing after finding, on the basis of the record before the trial court, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion? 2) Did the Circuit Court err in finding an appeal untimely when, pursuant to Rule 7-104(c), the Petitioner noted an appeal to a summary ejectment action within 30 days after the disposition of a timely filed post-judgment motion?

No. 24-C-20-001242, Circuit Court for Baltimore City
014 Misc.
2020 Application of Nemirovsky     2021-05-11   In the Matter of the Application of Leonid Nemirovsky for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
051
2020 Davis State 2021-02-08 2021-05-11   Criminal Procedure – As a matter of first impression, does a trial court determining whether to transfer jurisdiction of a criminal case to the juvenile court discharge its responsibility under Md. Code § 4-202(d)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Article to consider the “amenability of the child to treatment in an institution, facility, or program available to delinquent children” by considering the child’s eligibility for services in the juvenile system, or does the court also need to consider the child’s rehabilitative potential?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2014, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
054
2020 MAS Assoc. Korotki 2021-02-8 2021-06-03   Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Associates v. Korotki, 465 Md. 457 (2019) (“MAS Assoc.”), by entering judgment on two counts – unjust enrichment and wage payment – that were never appealed after the 2015 trial and were the subject of a final, enrolled judgment? 2) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Assoc. by entering judgment against a former party who was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction? 3) In adjusting damages awarded under the Maryland Wage and Collection Law, did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding no bona fide dispute and awarding no attorney’s fees or treble damages? 4) In adjusting damages awarded under unjust enrichment, did the trial court abuse its discretion in calculating prejudgment interest from the date of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner’s resignation rather than the date he made the loan? 5) Did the trial court err by not declaring judgment or adjusting damages under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act or the Md. Declaratory Judgment Act?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1103, Sept. Term, 2020 (pending)
059
2020 MAS Assoc. Korotki 2021-03-26 2021-06-03   Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Associates v. Korotki, 465 Md. 457 (“MAS Assoc. I”), by entering judgment on two counts – unjust enrichment and wage payment – that were never appealed after the 2015 trial and were the subject of a final, enrolled judgment? 2) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Assoc. I by entering judgment against a former party who was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction? 3) In adjusting damages awarded under the Maryland Wage and Collection Law, did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding no bona fide dispute and awarding no attorney’s fees or treble damages? 4) In adjusting damages awarded under unjust enrichment, did the trial court abuse its discretion in calculating prejudgment interest from the date of Respondent’s resignation rather than the date he made the loan? 5) Did the trial court err by not declaring judgment or adjusting damages under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act or the Maryland Declaratory Judgment Act?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1455, Sept. Term, 2020 (pending)
052
2020 Ocean City Worcester Cnty. 2021-02-08 2021-06-03   Tax-Property – 1) Are Md. Code §6-305 and §6-306 of the Tax-Property Article (“TP”) – which provide for mandatory real property tax setoffs for certain municipalities, but only optional tax setoffs for other municipalities, including Ocean City – constitutional under Article XI-E, §1 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires the General Assembly to “act in relation to the …government or affairs of any … municipal corporation only by general laws which shall in their terms and in their effect apply alike to all municipal corporations”? 2) Should the unconstitutionally non-uniform provisions of TP §6-305 and §6-306 be severed to the end that all municipalities in this State should be entitled to receive mandatory tax setoffs from the counties in which they are located, upon a showing by a municipality that it performs services of a type provided by the county (i.e., upon a showing that it is entitled to setoff)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2751, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
056
2020 Advanced Radiology Barton 2021-02-08 2021-06-03   Torts – 1) If negligent failure timely to diagnose cancer is alleged to be the proximate cause of a patient’s death, may a jury reasonably find proximate cause when the sole causation expert for the plaintiffs fails to opine that, more likely than not, the death was the proximate cause of a negligent delay in diagnosis? 2) May a jury in these circumstances nonetheless reasonably infer proximate cause from the expert’s recital of survival statistics that included a probability of death at the time of the allegedly late diagnosis at no greater than 34%? 3) Does CSA’s reversal of the trial judge’s entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict indirectly allow recovery for diminished chance of survival, a recovery that is not allowable under Maryland law?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1336, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
014 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Tatung   2021-06-04   Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
057
2020 Ross Ross 2021-03-05 2021-06-04   Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err by admitting into evidence an expert witness’ custody evaluation pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702 without a prior Frye-Reed or Daubert hearing as requested by Petitioner? 2) Was the erroneous admission of a custody evaluation ordered under Md. Rule 9-205.3 such an abuse of discretion that prejudice must be presumed, including in the appellate resolution of issues related to Petitioner’s credibility? 3) Did the trial court err by refusing to hear from competent children the reasons for their custodial preferences and their testimony regarding relevant facts?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1473, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
058
2020 Brawner Builders State Highway Admin. 2021-03-05 2021-06-04   State Finance & Procurement – 1) Did CSA and the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals (“MSBCA”) misconstrue the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) definition of a “Procurement Contract” and thereby erroneously conclude that the subcontractor lacked standing to pursue its separate claims against the Maryland State Highway Administration (“SHA”)? 2) Did CSA and MSCBA improperly conclude that “untimely notice” was a jurisdictional bar to Petitioner’s and the subcontractor’s claims rather than an affirmative defense subject to the doctrine of equitable estoppel? 3) Did CSA and MSCBA err when they decided issues of material fact regarding Petitioner’s “notice” and the factual issue of the existence of a contract between the subcontractor and SHA by disregarding SHA’s admissions that claims were pending, would be responded to, and that an administrative process was ongoing?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1643, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]