SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2016
Thursday, February 2, 2017:
No. 55 State of Maryland v. Andrew Baker
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court failed to articulate sufficiently the basis for its determination of manifest necessity for a retrial? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ryan R. Dietrich
Attorney for Respondent: Todd M. Brooks
No. 78 Cassandra Parker et al. v. William Hamilton et al.
Issue – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the Legislature overrule this Court’s decision in Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52 (1993), when it amended Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc § 5-201 in wrongful death cases? 2) As a matter of first impression, and consistent with Piselli v. 75th Street Medical, 371 Md. 188 (2002), does requiring a minor to file a wrongful death claim before he reaches the age of majority violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
Attorneys for Appellant: William C. Hudson, Emily C. Malarkey and Jeffrey S. Quinn
Attorney for Appellee: John L. Walter
No. 53 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Paul McGuire Styslinger
Issue – Transportation – Did the ALJ err, in a license-suspension hearing conducted under TR § 205.1(f), by requiring MVA to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a licensee who has refused to take a blood test was driving or attempting to drive when, as the ALJ found, the investigating officer had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the licensee was attempting to drive while impaired?
Attorney for Petitioner: Neil I. Jacobs
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey L. Shelton
No. 52 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Robert Allen Krafft
Issue – Transportation – In an alcohol test refusal, implied consent case, is it enough to support a license suspension that an officer reasonably believed that the licensee, whose vehicle was involved in an accident in front of his house and who is found in an intoxicated condition in his house with the door open had been driving his vehicle while intoxicated or must the MVA establish as much by a preponderance of the evidence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Dore J. Lebowitz
Attorney for Respondent: Mac Dean Jenkins
No. 56 Joseph Norman, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Does the smell of raw marijuana coming from a car stopped for a traffic violation provide police with reasonable suspicion to believe that all passengers in the car are armed and dangerous, such that a pat down, or Terry frisk, of the passengers is permissible, in the absence of any factors suggesting that any of the passengers posed a risk to the officer?
Attorney for Petitioner: Allison Pierce Brasseaux
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel J. Jawor
No. 44 Oscar Cruz-Quintanilla v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – May a sentencing court consider a criminal defendant’s gang membership when the State presents no evidence (1) that the underlying crime is gang related or (2) that the defendant committed any criminal actions on behalf of the gang?
Attorney for Petitioner: Gregory W. Gardner
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan R. Dietrich
AG No. 8 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. James Aloysius Powers
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy Paulick
Attorney for Respondent: James Aloysius Powers
No. 57 Terrence Rogers v. Home Equity USA, Inc.
Issues – Torts – 1) Can an appellate court decline to address the correctness of the trial court’s reasoning when granting summary judgment and then affirm the summary judgment relying on a different factual basis than that relied upon by the trial court where the trial court had discretion to deny summary judgment, the alternative basis required resolution of critical facts in dispute, and the appellate court rendered its decision without the benefit of a complete record? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the grant of summary judgment on a factual basis not relied upon by the trial court, when the factual support was first presented to the trial court by Respondent during the hearing on summary judgment, not allowing Petitioner time to ensure a complete factual record as to the issue? 3) Did CSA err in affirming the grant of summary judgment in reliance on a medical expert’s opinion stated during her deposition which, in turn, relied upon the resolution of a material fact in dispute, when the trial court did not rely upon this opinion as a reason for granting summary judgment, the issues could only be determined by resolving disputes of fact, and the record contained only non-consecutive pages of the deposition transcript? 4) Did CSA invade the province of the jury and make a determination of fact in affirming a grant of summary judgment? 6) Did the trial court err in granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and in denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, on the ground that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Robert J. Leonard and Scott E. Nevin
Attorneys for Respondent: Ava E. Lias-Booker and Patrick M. Meacham
No. 58 Stewart Levitas v. Michael Davon Christian
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in reconsidering all issues in this case when this Court’s order for “reconsideration in light of Roy v. Dackman, 445 Md. 23 (2015), should only have impacted the issue of expert qualifications? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding the medical expert’s testimony where the record showed that the expert did not have a sufficient factual basis to support either his opinion as to the source of lead exposure or the cause and extent of Respondent’s alleged injuries?
Attorneys for Petitioner: William C. Parler, Jr. and Kelly Ann Grafton
Attorney for Respondent: Brian S. Brown
No. 29 Thomas Clifford Wallace v. State of Maryland
Attorney for Appellant: William F. Renahan
Attorney for Appellee: Carrie J. Williams
No. 59 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Maryland Council 3 and AFSCME Local 1072 v. University of Maryland, College Park
Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Does a collective bargaining agreement that directs that an employee may only be disciplined for cause abrogate at-will employment? 2) Does a right to process for a public employee abrogate at-will employment?
Attorney for Petitioner: David Gray Wright
Attorney for Respondent: Erik J. Delfosse
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After February 7, 2017, the Court will recess until March 2, 2017.
BESSIE M. DECKER