SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2022
Thursday, March 2, 2023:
AG No. 3 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Wendy Barrow Culberson
Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Wendy Barrow Culberson
No. 24 Robert L. Fooks v. State of Maryland
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) In view of existing Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent interim decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), what is the proper analytical framework to apply to constitutional challenges to Maryland’s firearms laws? 2) Did CSA fail to apply the proper analytical framework to the constitutional challenges in this case? 3) Is Md. Code § 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to this case?
Attorney for Petitioner: Peter F. Rose
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew DiMiceli
No. 26 Jamaiya Oglesby v. Baltimore School Associates, et al.
Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it found that Petitioner’s medical expert lacked an adequate supply of data to opine as to the source and source causation of Petitioner’s lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it held that Petitioner’s medical expert’s opinion regarding Petitioner’s IQ loss was inadmissible, when the medical expert relied on studies that Maryland courts have repeatedly sanctioned? 3) Did the trial court err when it granted summary judgment after it excluded Petitioner’s expert witness from testifying entirely where the expert had rendered other opinions wherein the jury could have found that Petitioner was injured from her exposure to lead? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the testimony of Petitioner’s expert witness in its entirety, and that the trial court did not err in subsequently granting summary judgment?
Attorney for Petitioner: Cara L. O'Brien
Attorney for Respondent: Timothy M. Hurley
Friday, March 3, 2023:
No. 25 Damien Gary Clark v. State of Maryland
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does requiring a criminal defendant to retroactively prove his desire to defy the trial court’s order against speaking with his attorney about his case during an overnight recess violate his constitutional right to counsel? 2) Does permitting counsel to neglect or waive his client’s right to speak with him during an overnight recess violate that client’s constitutional right to counsel? 3) Was the post-conviction court’s ruling that prejudice was found from trial counsel not preserving the issue for appeal correct? 4) Is not objecting to the violation of a criminal defendant’s right to counsel due to mere ignorance of the law deficient performance?
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew D. Cryan
Attorney for Respondent: Jer Welter
No. 28 Board of County Commissioners of St. Mary's County, Maryland v. Barbara and Christopher Aiken, et al.
Issue – Real Property – Did CSA misconstrue the 1988 deed as a matter of law by failing to consider the language, intent, and surrounding circumstances to hold that a “public road” was established on the disputed property, where the road project was no longer feasible and the deed specifically stated that the property was no longer needed for a public road?
Attorney for Petitioner: Victoria M. Shearer
Attorneys for Respondent: Dirk Schwenk and V. Charles Donnelly
After March 3, 2023, the Court will recess until March 30, 2023. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise notified.