SEPTEMBER TERM 2022 Webcasts
March 2023 Oral Arguments
February 2023 Oral Arguments
January 2023 Oral Arguments
December 2022 Oral Arguments
November 2022 Oral Arguments
October 2022 Oral Arguments
September 2022 Oral Arguments
Oral Arguments Archives
September Term 2021 Webcasts
September Term 2020 Webcasts
September Term 2019 Webcasts
September Term 2018 Webcasts
September Term 2017 Webcasts
September Term 2016 Webcasts
September Term 2015 Webcasts
September Term 2014 Webcasts
September Term 2013 Webcasts
September Term 2012 Webcasts
September Term 2011 Webcasts
September Term 2010 Webcasts
September Term 2009 Webcasts
September Term 2008 Webcasts
September Term 2007 Webcasts
September Term 2006 Webcasts
Webcasts and the archived recordings of webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Recording or copying of any portion of the live webcast or the archived recording of a webcast is prohibited without the express permission of the Supreme Court, which can be obtained by contacting Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488 or at email@example.com. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
|March 2023 Schedule|
|03-03-2023||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?
|03-03-2023||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?
|03-02-2023||AG No. 3||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Wendy Barrow Culberson
|03-02-2023||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?
|03-02-2023||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?
|February 2023 Schedule|
|02-03-2023||AG No. 6||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kevin Mbeh Tabe
|02-03-2023||Misc. No. 10||John Orlando Satterfield v. State of Maryland
|02-03-2023||No. 23||Prince George's County Council, et al. v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George's County, et al.
Issues – Land Use – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a former property use as a zoning subcategory was not “reasonable and based upon public policy” and therefore violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Land Use Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that it was not a reasonable public policy to use the zoning ordinance to seek to discontinue a non-conforming use when Maryland public policy favors their discontinuation? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a local legislative body may not use the zoning ordinance to incentivize closure of airports, and other activities closely regulated by the State? 4) Did CSA err by establishing a standard of review that effectively eliminated the presumption of correctness when a text amendment to a zoning ordinance is adopted? 5) Did CSA err in holding that Council Bill CB-17-2019 violated the uniformity clause under the Regional District Act?
|02-02-2023||AG No. 42 (2021 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Marylin Pierre
|02-02-2023||Misc. No. 9||Michele Williams v. Morgan State University
Certified Question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Question: Does the waiver of sovereign immunity for “tort action[s]” in the Maryland Tort Claims Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-104(a)(1), extend to federal statutory claims, including those where the alleged harm is wrongful termination in retaliation for whistleblowing?
|January 2023 Schedule|
|01-06-2023||Comments on the History of the Court of Appeals|
|01-06-2023||No. 16||Bridget Romeka v. RadAmerica II, LLC, et al.
Issues – Health Occupations – 1) Did the trial court err by requiring a plaintiff with a retaliation claim under the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, Md. Code §1-502 of the Health Occupations Article, to show that protected conduct was the but-for cause of the challenged personnel action? 2) Did the trial court err in awarding summary judgment to the employer, despite genuine disputes of material fact, on the grounds that Petitioner could not establish her retaliation claim as a matter of law?
|01-06-2023||No. 20||Baltimore Police Department, et al. v. Open Justice Baltimore
Issues – General Provisions – 1) Does the discretionary language in Md. Code § 4-206(3) of the General Provisions Article, stating that, under certain conditions, “[t]he official custodian may waive a fee under this section,” require the official custodian to waive a fee when police misconduct investigation records are requested? 2) When an official custodian denies a fee waiver request in good faith, but a reviewing court rules that the denial is arbitrary and capricious for failure to consider an additional relevant factor, is the proper remedy a remand to the agency to consider that additional factor, or summary reversal (i.e., ordering the agency to waive the fee)? 3) Did CSA err by reversing the circuit’s affirmation of Petitioner’s fee waiver denial when there was sworn affidavit evidence in the record that Petitioner had considered the relevant factors in determining that the requested waiver was not in the public interest?
|December 2022 Schedule|
|12-06-2022||AG No. 2||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sherwood R. Wescott
|12-06-2022||Misc. No. 2||William Samuel Blake v. State of Maryland
Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals
Questions: 1) Did the post-conviction court err by holding that trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to compel discoverable impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness [Officer Laronde]? 2) In the alternative, did the post-conviction court err by ruling that the State had not violated its Brady obligations by failing to disclose impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness?
|12-06-2022||No. 18||State of Maryland v. Keith Krikstan
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Was the evidence sufficient to find that Respondent engaged in an act inside of school hours that “involved” sexual exploitation, where he specifically opted to substitute in the class of a certain student and while in the classroom expressed jealousy about that student’s attraction to someone else, given that he was engaging in a sexually exploitative relationship by way of electronic communications with this same student outside of school? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to find that Respondent’s acts and statements in class constituted grooming the student, and does such grooming “involve” sexual exploitation where a sexually exploitative relationship is conducted outside of school?
|12-05-2022||AG No. 37 (2021 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Louis Sloane
|12-05-2022||No. 19||Kevron D. Walker v. State of Maryland
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Do the destruction and expungement provisions of the Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Code § 2-511 of the Public Safety (“P.S.”) Article apply to DNA samples collected from a person pursuant to a search warrant after the person is arrested and charged, or do those provisions apply only to so-called “arrestee” samples, as the Act has been interpreted in regulations promulgated by the Department of State Police? 2) Did the lower courts err in concluding that P.S. § 2-511 does not contain an exclusionary rule for violations of the destruction and expungement provisions of the Act? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the destruction and expungement provisions in P.S. § 2-511 apply only to arrestee samples, was the trial court’s finding of fact, that the DNA sample at issue here was not an arrestee sample, clearly erroneous; or, in the alternative, if the record is unclear as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample, should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Md. Rules 8-604, so that the court can receive evidence and make findings of fact as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample or was collected from Petitioner pursuant to a search warrant for his DNA? 4) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress DNA evidence?
|12-05-2022||No. 17||Jennifer Rowe v. Maryland Commission on Civil Rights
Issue – State Government – Does CSA have jurisdiction over appeals from circuit courts of petitions for judicial review of Maryland Commission on Civil Rights no-probable-cause findings in public accommodations discrimination cases?
|November 2022 Schedule|
|11-04-2022||AG No. 41 (2021 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. George L. Farmer
|11-04-2022||AG No. 1 (2021 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gregory Wayne Jones
|11-03-2022||Misc. No. 3||In the Matter of the Application of William Wallace Montier for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
|11-03-2022||AG No. 48 (2021 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ali Mansouri Kalarestaghi
|11-03-2022||No. 11||Maryland Department of the Environment v. Assateague Coastal Trust
Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Was the Department’s final determination to require individualized assessments of gaseous emissions for poultry houses and other animal feeding operations covered by the general permit supported by substantial evidence in the record and not arbitrary and capricious? 2) Did the Department err in issuing a General Discharge Permit for Animal Feeding Operations without including controls for ammonia emissions, when Md. water pollution control laws unambiguously require regulation of ammonia emissions 3) Do the Clean Water Act and the more stringent Md. water pollution control laws require water discharge limitations that take into account impaired receiving waters (i.e. water quality-based effluent limitations) where effluent limitations based solely on minimum levels of treatment achieved by technology are ineffective?
|11-03-2022||No. 15||Tyrie Washington v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In light of the legitimate reasons why young Black men may be afraid of interacting with the police, what weight, if any, should “unprovoked” flight from the police be given in the reasonable suspicion analysis? 2) Does flight from the Baltimore police by a young Black man in Baltimore City give police reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop? 3) Did CSA err by holding that the stop of Petitioner did not violate Petitioner’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, despite recognizing the “problematic implications” of relying on flight from the police in the reasonable suspicion analysis? 4) Did CSA err by holding that the stop of Petitioner did not violate Petitioner’s rights under Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and, if so, does a violation of Article 26 require the exclusion of the illegally seized evidence? 5) Should the detectives’ observations of a “bulge” in Petitioner’s waistband and that Petitioner was “manipulating something at his front as he’s running” be imputed to the arresting officer and considered in the reasonable suspicion analysis under the collective knowledge doctrine?
|October 2022 Schedule|
|10-07-2022||No. 21||In re: Petition for Emergency Remedy of the Maryland State Board of Elections
Issues – Election Law – 1) Did the trial court correctly rule that the remedy sought under Md. Code § 8-103(b)(1) of the Election Law (“E.L.”)article comports with the principle of separation of powers because the remedy, an adjustment to the electoral calendar, is a function routinely entrusted to the judicial branch? 2) Did the trial court correctly rule that the incoming volume of mail-in ballots and inadequate time frame in which to process them constitute “emergency circumstances” that “interfere with the electoral process” as those terms are used in E.L. § 8-103(b)(1)?
|10-04-2022||AG No. 47 (2020 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edward Allen Malone
|10-04-2022||No. 10||Kobina Ebo Abruquah v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Is firearm identification methodology sufficiently reliable to allow an examiner to identify a specific firearm as the source of a questioned bullet or casing, or should the examiner be permitted to testify, at most, that a firearm cannot be excluded as the source of the questioned projectile?
|10-04-2022||No. 8||Terrance Belton v. State of Maryland
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does a criminal defendant’s right to a fair and impartial judge and the appearance of a fair and impartial judge extend to appellate proceedings? 2) Does dicta in CSA’s reported opinion violate Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 3) Did CSA err in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Recall and Reconsider Reported Opinion where the opinion denies Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of Petitioner’s testimony regarding the victim’s statement, “This is my block,” which was critical to Petitioner’s self-defense and defense-of-others defenses, constituted harmless error?
|10-03-2022||AG No. 40 (2021 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Terence Taniform
|10-03-2022||No. 14||Steven G. Carver v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, when evaluating newly discovered evidence in an actual-innocence proceeding, must a court consider the new evidence and the evidence admitted at trial collectively with evidence that was available to the defense but not offered at trial, and/or offered but excluded, where the available evidence was made relevant and admissible by the newly discovered evidence? 2) Where Joseph Kopera was the sole firearms expert at trial, is the contrary opinion of a non-fraudulent firearms expert, obtained after the revelation of Kopera’s fraud, newly discovered evidence? 3) Did the lower courts err by failing to consider the cumulative impact of separate but related categories of newly discovered evidence as required by Faulkner v. State, 468 Md. 418 (2020)? 4) Did the lower court err by denying the petition for writ of actual innocence?
|10-03-2022||Nos. 12 & 13||Montgomery Park, LLC v. Maryland Department of General Services
Issues – State Finance & Procurement – 1) Is it arbitrary or capricious for a procurement officer to cancel the proposed award of a procurement contract without making independent “written findings” required by Maryland law to support that decision, and instead relying on someone else’s findings that were not supported by the administrative record? 2) Did Petitioner have standing to challenge the unlawful award of a sole source contract to a different applicant?
|September 2022 Schedule|
|09-13-2022||No. 4||Ray Crawford, et al. v. County Council of Prince George's County, Sitting as the District Council, et al.
Issue – Land Use – Is an Amazon Last Mile Hub a “warehouse” and, therefore, permitted by right at the Subject Property?
|09-13-2022||No. 9||United Parcel Service, et al. v. David Strothers
Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of Md. Code § 9-504 of the Labor & Employment (“LE”) Article, that “definite proof” applies to the quality of evidence presented, and not to the standard of evidence presented when the same quality of evidence is required in all claims presented before the Workers’ Compensation Commission? 2) Did CSA err when it found that the Respondent met his burden of production when producing medical evidence to a preponderance of the evidence standard, a standard to which all other claims submitted before the Workers’ Compensation Commission must meet? 3) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of LE § 9-504, that “immediate operation is needed” applies to the recommendation for surgery and not the timing of the surgery, finding 59 days to be “immediate”?
|09-12-2022||No. 1||Susan Dzurec, et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County, Maryland, et al.
Issues – Local Government – 1) If a county commissioner is voting to enact a Comprehensive Plan in violation of the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance, is that vote ultra vires? 2) Does the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance include an implied cause of action for citizens with standing?
|09-12-2022||No. 64 (2021 T.)||Antonio McGhee v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law – 1) Do Charles v. State, 414 Md. 726 (2010), Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011), which concern the propriety of CSI-effect voir dire questions and jury instructions, apply to cases that became final before those decisions issued? 2) Did Petitioner’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel when at Petitioner’s 2007 trial, she failed to object to a CSI-effect voir dire question?
|09-09-2022||No. 5||Access Funding, LLC, et al. v. Chrystal Linton, et al.
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must determine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties when Respondents did not challenge the validity or enforceability of the underlying agreements containing the arbitration clauses in their complaint? 2) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must decide the existence of an arbitration agreement when well-established Federal and Maryland law mandates that the arbitrator and not the court decides the issue of arbitrability when Respondents executed agreements containing arbitration clauses that expressly stated the arbitrator shall decide the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute, and Respondents have only alleged fraud and misrepresentation as to the agreements as a whole and not with respect to the arbitration clause separately and specifically?
|09-09-2022||Misc. No. 1||Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Question: When a first-party, all-risk property insurance policy covers “all risks of physical loss or damage” to insured property from any cause unless excluded, is coverage triggered when a toxic, noxious, or hazardous substance – such as Coronavirus or COVID-19 - that is physically present in the indoor air of that property damages the property or causes loss, either in whole or in part, of the functional use of the property?
|09-09-2022||No. 7||Comptroller of Maryland v. FC-GEN Operations Investments LLC
Issues – Tax-General – 1) Should this Court overrule recent decisions and hold that on judicial review of a decision in a tax case, the agency owed deference in the interpretation and application of tax law is the Comptroller and not the Tax Court? 2) Did the Tax Court and CSA err in finding that estimated tax remittances are “deposits,” not statutorily required “payments,” when Maryland’s doctrine of conformity requires the application of federal law to Md. Code § 13-1104(c) of the Tax-General Article, and federal law considers them payments? 3) When properly applied, do Maryland’s voluntary payment rule and the statutory framework for refunds of estimated taxes found in found in Title 13 of the Tax-General Article require denying FC-GEN’s claim, which it improperly submitted for itself, under the law?
|09-08-2022||No. 6||Ernest and Maryann Elsberry v. Stanley Martin Companies, LLC
Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court rely on legislative history unrelated to the specific statutory text at issue to override the consumer protections granted in the plain language and tabulation of Md. Code § 14-117(a)(3) of the Real Property (“RP”) Article, an unambiguous remedial statute? 2) Did CSA violate Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution by using the title of the bill “Prince George’s County – Deferred Water and Sewer Charges Homeowner Disclosure Act of 2014” to contradict the plain language of RP § 14-117(a)(3)(ii)?
|09-08-2022||No. 2||M. Abraham Ahmad v. Mehdi Ahmad & Giti Ahmad Revocable Trust
Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Can the statute of limitations operate to adversely affect a substantive right of a party acquired under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction? 2) Can a legal nullity start the running of the statute of limitations? 3) Can a trust void ab initio and made in violation of law benefit from a statute of limitations defense?