SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2019
Thursday, October 31, 2019:
No. 22 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Brian J. Barrett
Issue – Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that a driver detained for driving under the influence of alcohol failed to rebut a police officer’s certification that he was fully advised of the administrative sanctions of Md. Code (2018 Supp.) §16-205.1 of the Transportation Article after being given a copy of the DR-15 Advice of Rights form, which the officer read aloud to him, and thereafter asked the motorist seven times if he wanted to take a test for alcohol concentration, which the motorist refused?
Attorney for Petitioner: Dore J. Lebowitz
Attorney for Respondent: C. Edward Middlebrooks
No. 29 State of Maryland v. Christopher Mann
Issues – Criminal Law – Did CSA err when it held that defense counsel’s failure to request an alibi jury instruction was prejudicial, for the purpose of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), when the presence of that instruction would not have presented a likelihood of a different outcome of the trial?
Attorney for Petitioner: Benjamin A. Harris
Attorney for Respondent: William L. Welch, III
No. 27 Bettye Jean McFarland v. Baltimore Community Lending, Inc.
Issues – Financial Institutions – 1) For joint-ownership bank accounts, should the “equal share” approach apply under Maryland law to impose a rebuttable presumption that all account holders own equal shares of the funds held in a joint account? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving (by clear and convincing evidence) that she was the sole owner of her social security and pension retirement funds in the bank account?
Attorneys for Petitioner: David Ludwig and Thomas Dunlap
Attorney for Respondent: Scott B. Wheat
Monday, November 4, 2019:
AG No. 40 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Anne Margaret Miller
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica M. Boltz
Attorney for Respondent: Larry J. Feldman
No. 23 Gables Construction, Inc. v. Red Coats, Inc., et al.
Issue – Torts – As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in holding that a defendant can be liable for joint tortfeasor contribution even though it is not liable to the injured person in tort by virtue of a contractual waiver of claims covered by insurance?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Robert L. Ferguson, Jr. and Timothy J. Dygert, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Alex J. Brown
No. 28 Anthony Marlin Tunnell v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Procedure – Is the 180-day deadline set forth by Md. Rule 4-271 and Md. Code (2008 Repl. Vol.) § 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article, known as the ‘Hicks Rule,’ tolled while the State awaits the results of DNA testing?
Attorney for Petitioner: Helki Philipsen
Attorney for Respondent: Sara Page Pritzlaff
Tuesday, November 5, 2019:
AG No. 77 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jason Edward Rheinstein
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Craig Brodsky
No. 25 State of Maryland v. Hussain Ali Zadeh
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a jointly tried defendant claims that there were too many limiting instructions for a jury to effectively follow, should the reviewing court first consider whether the limiting instructions were justified by non-mutually admissible evidence? 2) When a warrant authorizes the seizure of certain evidence from a car, and an officer, during a lawful frisk of the driver, feels evidence that falls within the warrant, does the plain-feel doctrine permit the seizure of that evidence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Marybeth Ayres
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew H. Blumenstein
No. 24 Patrick Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company
Issue – Insurance Law – Does Maryland Law construe Respondent’s 1974 insurance policies as promising to pay the judgment in full, contrary to the law of some other states?
Attorney for Appellant: Gardner M. Duvall
Attorney for Appellee: Kamil Ismail
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 November 5, 2019, the Court will recess until December 5, 2019.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON