Argument Schedule -- March 2022

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

 

September Term, 2021

 

 

Thursday, March 3, 2022:

No. 28 Thornton Mellon LLC v. Adrianne Dennis Exempt Trust

Issues – Tax-Property – 1) Can “impeded redemption,” a doctrine created by the trial court and upheld by the CSA, be employed in tax sale cases as a basis to dismiss timely-filed complaints to foreclose rights of redemption and deny statutory attorneys’ fees where Md. Code § 14-829 of the Tax-Property (“TP”) Article specifically provides a redemption procedure when the amount in redemption is in dispute after a complaint is filed? 2) Can a property owner who fails to redeem a property for six months after a tax sale avoid owing additional statutory attorneys’ fees under the impeded redemption doctrine without proving they had the ability to redeem the property prior to the filing of the complaint to foreclose right of redemptions? 3) Is a tax sale purchaser, after waiting the requisite six months after a tax sale, required to delay filing a complaint to foreclose right of redemption if the owner of the property states an intent to redeem the property? 4) Can a tax sale purchaser be deemed to have filed a complaint to foreclose right of redemption “prematurely” if the complaint is filed more than the requisite six months after the tax sale? 5) Was CSA correct to find that the trial court committed no errors in dismissing Petitioner’s complaint and denying its requests for attorneys’ fees based on the impeded redemption doctrine, where Respondent failed to attempt to redeem the property in accordance with TP § 14-829, conceded that she was aware of her ability to redeem the property minutes after paying fees to Petitioner, and otherwise did not provide any evidence of her ability to redeem prior to Petitioner filing its complaint? 6) Was CSA correct to find that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motions for extraordinary attorneys’ fees, when the trial court did not review the requests for fees on the merits and denied them solely on the basis that they flowed from Petitioner’s “premature” complaint?

Attorney for Petitioner: Geoffrey Polk
Attorney for Respondent: William F. Steinwedel

No. 45 Dawnta Harris v. State of Maryland

Issues – 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?

Attorney for Petitioner: Megan E. Coleman
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew DiMiceli

No. 46 Anthony J. Richardson v. State of Maryland

Issues – 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?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael T. Torres
Attorney for Respondent: Derek Simmonsen

 

Friday, March 4, 2022:

AG No. 57 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Clifford Baer Silbiger

Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Kathleen Howard Meredith

Misc. No. 11 Alison Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C., et al.

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?

Attorney for Appellant: Joseph Mack
Attorney for Appellee: David J. Shuster

No. 63 Prince George's County v. Robert E. Thurston, et al.

Issue – Local Codes – Is a Resolution, having the force and effect of law, a valid measure to adopt a decennial County Council Redistricting Plan?

Attorneys for Appellant: Rajesh A. Kumar and Rosalyn E. Pugh
Attorney for Appellee: Timothy F. Maloney

 

Monday, March 7, 2022:

No. 43 Bennett Frankel, et al.v. Casey Lou Deane

Issues – 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?

Attorney for Petitioner: Christian W. Kintigh
Attorney for Respondent: Fred B. Goldberg

No. 44 Patrick Spevak v. Montgomery County, Maryland

Issue – 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”?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Kenneth M. Berman 
Attorney for Respondent: Wendy Karpel

 

Tuesday, March 8, 2022:

No. 42 Terence Williams v. Dimensions Health Corporation

Issues – 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?

Attorney for Petitioner: Stephen Y. Brennan
Attorney for Respondent: Derek Stikeleather

AG No. 1 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Deidra Nicole Proctor

Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Deidra Nicole Proctor

 

 

On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified. After March 8, 2022, the Court will recess until April 4, 2022.

 

 

SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK