SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2019
Wednesday, October 2, 2019:
No. 4 Robin Bartlett Frazier v. James McCarron, et al.
Issues – General Provisions – 1) For the imposition of a public fine under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”), must the public body not only “willfully” meet “with knowledge” that its meeting is in violation of the Act, but also have a nefarious motive? 2) When the OMA is violated, but a trial court erroneously finds no violation, is that error “harmless” with respect to enforcing the Act? 3) Should the OMA be strictly construed to limit a public body’s actions to the closed meeting exceptions it publicly discloses prior to the meeting?
Attorney for Petitioner: John R. Garza
Attorney for Respondent: Kevin Karpinski
No. 12 Brian Wynne, et al. v. Comptroller of Maryland
Issue – Taxation – Did the trial court correctly hold that Section 16 of the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2014 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, even though it reduces the interest on tax refunds paid to a discrete class of taxpayers engaged in interstate commerce?
Attorney for Appellant: Sean Marotta
Attorney for Appellee: Brian L. Oliner
No. 18 Motor Vehicle Administration v. John W. Pollard
Issues – Transportation – Was the administrative law judge in error to believe that a drunk driving suspect who refused a test for alcohol concentration could avoid a license suspension by asserting the defense he was “sheltering” in a vehicle without regard to the detaining officer’s reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist had been driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?
Attorney for Petitioner: David C. Merkin
Attorney for Respondent: Mandeep S. Chhabra
Friday, October 4, 2019:
No. 17 Minh-Vu Hoang v. Jeffrey Lowery
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA ignore established precedent and rules of statutory construction in holding that the tolling statute provided for under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-202 indefinitely tolled, until the closure of the bankruptcy case, actions only against debtors denied a discharge in bankruptcy? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the policy of the tolling statute should apply to cases where the debtor is denied a discharge, did CSA err in holding 1) that the statute applied to the creditor’s failure to renew his judgment; and 2) that the tolling should continue until the closure of the bankruptcy case?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ronald L. Schwartz
Attorney for Respondent: Carlos M. Recio
No. 20 Romechia Simms v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) In order to issue a hospital warrant, which initiates the process of revoking conditional release granted to individuals who have been found guilty but not criminally responsible, does a trial court only have to find probable cause to believe that the individual violated a term of the conditional release order, or does the court also have to find probable cause to believe that the individual poses a danger to self, others, or property? 2) In order to comply with constitutional due process, must §3-121 of the Criminal Procedure Article be interpreted to require that a hospital warrant may be issued only where the warrant-issuing court finds probable cause to believe that the patient poses a danger to self, others, or property?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael T. Torres
Attorney for Respondent: Ari S. Elbaum
Monday, October 7, 2019:
No. 16 Randy R. Pinner v. Mona H. Pinner, et al.
Issues – Civil Procedure – Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City abuse its discretion in holding that an out-of-state defendant had sufficient contact through her attorneys for specific personal jurisdiction under the Maryland long arm statute for failing to name a use plaintiff and give the notice required by Md. Rule 15-1001 in a protracted, still continuing wrongful death case that the out-of-state resident initiated in the same Maryland court and from which she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements?
Attorney for Petitioner: Howard J. Schulman
Attorney for Respondent: Linda M. Schuett
No. 11 Tshibangu Kazadi v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is a criminal defendant entitled, upon request, to voir dire questions aimed at identifying prospective jurors who are unable or unwilling to apply the principles that the State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is presumed innocent, and that the defendant has the right to remain silent and refuse to testify and that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant’s silence? 2) Where a critical State’s witness reveals pretrial that she and her minor child, also a witness, are subject to a deportation order, must the State provide in discovery the witness’s Alien Number and a copy of the deportation order so that defense counsel may identify potential impeachment evidence as described in Maryland Rules 5-608(b) and 5-616(a)(4)? 3) Where defense counsel has a good-faith basis to believe that critical State’s witnesses are the subject of deportation orders, is defense counsel entitled to cross-examine those witnesses about their immigration issues pursuant to Maryland Rules 5-608(b) and 5-616(a)(4), the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy E. Brennan
Attorney for Respondent: Todd W. Hesel
No. 15 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Ariel A. Medvedeff
Issue – Transportation – Is it error for an administrative law judge to impose credibility determinations and inferences from circumstances at the scene of a drunk driving arrest in making a legal determination that the detaining officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect that the person sitting in the driver’s seat after a traffic stop was driving and, therefore, that the officer could not request that the detainee take an alcohol concentration test under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1?
Attorney for Petitioner: Leight D. Collins
Arguing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent: Kelly S. Kylis
Tuesday, October 8, 2019:
No. 19 Credible Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Emmanuel Johnson
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court erroneously apply Md. Rule 7-113(f) when it reviewed the district court’s construction of a contract’s terms for clear error rather than de novo? 2) Did the plain terms of the parties’ promissory note (“Note”) entitle Petitioner to a judgment against the Respondent? 3) In interpreting the Note, did Maryland law require the trial court to choose the one among two possible readings of the Note that was consistent with the parties’ intent?
Attorney for Petitioner: Stephen Nichols
Attorney for Respondent: David A. Schiller
No. 14 Elijah Peterson v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Is postconviction relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 2) Is coram nobis relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 3) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, who was convicted of a crime and found not to be criminally responsible and was on conditional release, was not eligible to collaterally challenge his convictions by either a postconviction petition or a petition for writ of coram nobis?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kiran Iyer
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams
No. 21 Starr Neal, et al. v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s order granting a Motion to Enforce Judgments against a school board pursuant to Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol.) §5-518 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) was barred by res judicata? 2) May a judgment solely against a school board employee be levied against a school board pursuant to CJP §5-518?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jared Jaskot
Attorneys for Respondent: Tamal A. Banton and Amanda L. Costley
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 October 8, 2019, the Court will recess until October 31, 2019.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON