SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2023
Monday, October 2, 2023:
Misc. No. 65 (2022 T.) In the Matter of A.C.
Attorney for Appellant: Steven Klepper
Attorney for Appellee: James O. Spiker, IV
No. 5 Charles Riley, Jr., Revocable Trust, et al. v. Venice Beach Citizens Association, Inc.
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by vacating and reversing an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Petitioner, given that the court (a) did not vacate the interlocutory order until the conclusion of a trial in which Petitioner had no reason to put on evidence concerning claims that were already adjudicated in its favor and (b) entered judgment in favor of Respondent because, according to the ACM, “the evidence at trial did not support” Petitioner’s claims? 2) Did the ACM abuse its discretion by directing the trial court to reconsider Respondent’s counter-complaint on remand, given that final judgment was entered against Respondent on its counter-complaint, Respondent didn’t note any cross-appeal from the judgment, and Respondent did not assert any error regarding the trial court’s judgment in its brief to the ACM?
Attorney for Petitioner: N. Tucker Meneely
Attorneys for Respondent: Barbara J. Palmer and Kyra L. Wheatley
Thursday, October 5, 2023:
No. 7 Adnan Syed v. Young Lee, as Victim's Representative, et al.
Justice Battaglia will sit in place of Chief Justice Fader
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a lawfully entered nolle prosequi render moot an appeal alleging procedural violations at a hearing occurring prior to the nolle prosequi? 2) Does a victim’s representative, a non-party to a case, have the right to attend a vacatur hearing in-person or does remote attendance satisfy the right? 3) Was notice to the victim’s representative of the vacatur hearing sufficient where the State complied with all statutory and rules-based notice requirements? 4) Must a victim’s representative seeking reversal show prejudice on appeal? 5) Is a victim’s right to speak incorporated into the Vacatur Statute, Md. Code § 8-301.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article, where no party or entity other than the victim has an interest in challenging the evidence alleged to support vacatur?
Attorney for Petitioner: Erica J. Suter
Attorneys for Respondent: Ari B. Rubin and Derek Simmonsen
After October 5, 2023, the Court will recess until November 2, 2023. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.