SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2022
Thursday, May 4, 2023:
No. 31 Jonathan D. Smith v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Does the State’s two-decade long pattern of intentional, willful, and/or reckless misconduct, including widespread suppression of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and knowing false statements, mandate dismissal with prejudice under the Due Process Clause? A. Did the lower courts apply an erroneous standard and/or err in their evaluation of the prejudice suffered by Petitioner? B. Did the lower courts apply an erroneous standard and/or err in their determination that there was a less drastic alternative remedy to dismissal with prejudice?
Attorney for Petitioner: Susan Friedman
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel Jawor
No. 30 Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, Gershman & Freedman, P.A., et al. v. Parkway Neuroscience and Spine Institute, LLC
Issue – Maryland Rules – Did ACM err in finding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on lost profits?
Attorney for Petitioner: Steven M. Klepper
Attorney for Respondent: Michelle J. Dickinson
Misc. No. 24 In the Matter of the Petition of Kern Hosein
Certified Question from the Appellate Court of Maryland
Question: Does the 15-day extension apply to all cases whose statute of limitations and deadlines related to initiation expired between March 16, 2020, and April 3, 2022?
Attorney for Appellant: Kieran P. Dowdy
Attorneys for Appellee: Heather R. Pensyl
Friday, May 5, 2023:
Misc. No. 29 In the Matter of the Application of Neo Kamohelo Moneri for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Arguing for Petitioner: Neo Kamohelo Moneri
AG No. 1 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Asher Newton Weinberg
Attorney for Appellant: Kelly A. Robier
Attorney for Appellee: Asher Newton Weinberg
No. 32 Comptroller of Maryland v. Comcast of California/Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia/West Virginia, LLC, et al.
Issues – Taxation – 1) Does the remedial scheme in Tax-General (“Tax-Gen.”) Title 13, including an express prohibition against judicial interference in tax assessment and collection, Tax-Gen. § 13-505, preclude taxpayers from bringing a court challenge to the constitutionality of the digital ad tax before exhausting administrative remedies? If not: 2) Did the trial court err in declaring that the Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause, where the Act’s plain language ensures that it taxes only revenue earned in Maryland, in fair proportion to a taxpayer’s economic activity in the State, and the Act applies equally to Maryland-based and out-of-state businesses? 3) Did the trial court err in declaring that the Act violates the First Amendment, where it satisfies the criteria in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Dept. of Finance of Baltimore City, 472 Md. 444 (2021), and the Act does not disfavor but instead benefits the press? 4) Did the trial court err in declaring that the digital advertising tax violates the Supremacy Clause and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, 47 U.S.C. §151 (“ITFA”), where the Supreme Court has held that the Supremacy Clause does not give rise to any right of action, Congress has not authorized a private right of action or remedy to enforce the ITFA, which lacks a feature needed for preemption, and the Act does not conflict with the ITFA? 5) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment when there remained genuine disputes of material fact?
Attorney for Petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey A. Friedman
After May 5, 2023, the Court will recess until June 1, 2023. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise notified.