SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2023
Friday, November 3, 2023 - to be held at Dr. Henry A. Wise, Jr., High School in Upper Marlboro, Maryland:
No. 6 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Rahq Deika Montana Usan
Issue – Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that reasonable grounds existed under Md. Code § 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article for a law enforcement officer to request a motorist to take a test for alcohol concentration, despite there being no odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath and a preliminary breath test result reflecting 0.00 blood alcohol content, but where the motorist was driving erratically and with indicia of intoxication to include horizontal gaze nystagmus and lack of coordination and balance?
Attorney for Petitioner: Dore J. Lebowitz
Attorney for Respondent: Calvin Lee
No. 10 In the Matter of Mark McCloy
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the Maryland State Police’s (“MSP”) denial of petitioner’s application to purchase a regulated firearm? 2) Did ACM err in finding that the relevant Md. statute to be considered for equivalence is the statue in effect at the time of the application, not the statute in effect at the time of the out-of-state conviction? 3) Did ACM err in adopting a “substantial evidence” test that fails to provide clear criteria for determining the equivalence of out-of-state offenses and affords unreasonable deference to the agency’s changing statutory interpretations? 4) Did ACM err in finding that a “reasonable mind” could accept the MSP’s conclusion, given that MSP’s conclusion has abruptly and inexplicably changed absent any changes to the relevant facts or law?
Attorney for Petitioner: Dillon Harris
Attorney for Respondent: Mark H. Bowen
Monday, November 6, 2023:
Misc. No. 1 In the Matter of the Application of Ian Patrick Wright for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Applicant: Gorman E. Getty, III
No. 8 Charles Mitchell v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Should Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146 (2007) – which summarily rejected the request to ask voir dire questions regarding the credibility of children, like the one at issue in this case, that is: whether any prospective juror would be more or less likely to believe a witness merely because the witness is a child – be reconsidered in light of recent case law governing voir dire?
Attorney for Petitioner: Stephanie Asplundh
Attorney for Respondent: Conor McCarthy
No. 4 Westminster Management, LLC, et al. v. Tenae Smith, et al.
Justice Harrell will sit in place of Justice Biran.
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that the undefined term “rent” in Md. Code § 8-401 of the Real Property (“RP”) Article means only the periodic charge for use or occupancy of the premises, contrary to this Court’s precedent? 2) Does Maryland law allow a landlord and tenant to contract in the lease the manner in which the tenant’s payments for rent and other hard costs will be applied and allocated? 3) Does Maryland law allow a landlord to pass on its costs in initiating a summary ejectment action under RP § 8-401, including agent and summons fees, to a delinquent tenant under a lease? 4) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial courts denial of class certification, where the unique and individualized circumstances of the claims and defenses as to each putative claimant render this lawsuit unsuitable for class action treatment? 5) Whether Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on liability and declaratory judgments regarding their rights?
Attorney for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: Michael E. Blumenfeld
Attorney for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: Andrew D. Freeman
After November 6, 2023, the Court will recess until December 4, 2023. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.