Court of Appeals Webcast Archive 2016 Term

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 communications@mdcourts.gov. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.

 

July 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
07-27-2017 No. 98

Jane and John Doe et al. v. Alternative Medicine Maryland, LLC et al.

Issues – Health General – 1) Are Appellants entitled to participate in a lawsuit, including a preliminary injunction hearing, where the Appellee (plaintiff in the trial court) has expressly asked to invalidate their award and any injunction would destroy their businesses, force them to lay off employees, cause substantial economic losses and deprive some Petitioners of needed cannabis therapy? 2) Should the trial court action be stayed pending resolution of the issue of indispensable parties, given that the Appellee waited months or years to seek a preliminary injunction and has no likelihood of success on the merits?
June 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
06-02-2017 No. 93 AnnMcGeehan v. Michael McGeehan

Issue – Family Law – Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s determination that the parties’ oral agreement, with consideration, that property deemed Wife’s sole and separate property did not constitute a “valid agreement” under the requirements of Family Law § 8201(e)?
06-02-2017 No. 96 Schneider Electric Buildings Critical Systems, Inc. v. Western Surety Company

Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Whether the surety on a performance bond issued for a subcontract is bound by an arbitration clause set forth in the subcontract where the bond expressly incorporates, and states that the surety is jointly and severally bound for the performance of, the subcontract?
06-02-2017 No. 97 Natasha Burak v. Mark Burak, et al.

Issues – Family Law – 1) May grandparents intervene in a custody dispute between parents to seek custody of their grandchild before there has been an adjudication of the unfitness of the custodial parents? 2) May the “exceptional circumstances” test set forth by this Court in Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172 (1977) be used to take custody away from a biological parent with whom the child has lived for his entire life? 3) May a parent be required to pay child support to grandparents, and if so, may such child support be awarded without consideration of the financial resources of the grandparents?
06-01-2017 Bar Admissions
 
06-01-2017 AG No. 87 In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Larry Jason Feldman
 
06-01-2017 No. 69 Electrical General Corp. et al. v. Michael L. LaBonte

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did the previously determined finding that the Respondent sustained a subsequent intervening accident bar any further liability of the Employer and Insurer for workers’ compensation benefits due to a prior work injury? 2) Did the trial court err in allowing the jury to consider whether the Respondent sustained a subsequent intervening accident to his back because litigation of that issue was precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel? 3) Did the trial court err in submitting the jury question of whether the Respondent’s back condition was causally related to the work injury because the question was insufficient to resolve the factual disputes between the parties and improperly shifted the burden of proof to Employer and Insurer? 4) Did the trial court err in allowing the jury to decide issues that were not previously decided by the Workers’ Compensation Commission?
06-01-2017 No. 85 Richard Ceccone v. Carroll Home Services, LLC

Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Did the trial court err by dismissing the case due to a consumer contract’s time limitation clause where that clause contradicts the Statute of Limitations in Md. Code Ann, Courts & Judicial Proceedings, 5-101?
06-01-2017 No. 87 Sage Title Group, LLC v. Robert Roman

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in creating an “escrow account” exception to the rule against conversion claims involving comingled funds? 2) If an employee violates company policy without breaking the law, is a later serious crime foreseeable to the employer? 3) Must the doctrine of unclean hands/in pari delicto, which is a question for the court, be invoked in a Rule 2-519 motion before submission to the jury? 4) Can a defendant in a conversion claim for money avoid liability with a “commingling” defense if that defendant was entrusted with specific, identifiable funds and agreed with the plaintiff to place those funds in an escrow account to which only plaintiff would have access? 5) Was CSA correct to find that expert testimony was necessary to prove Respondent’s negligence claim, where Petitioner wrongfully transferred Respondent’s money to third parties without Respondent’s authority? 6) Was CSA correct to find that Petitioner preserved for review its argument that its employee’s conduct was not foreseeable and, therefore, not within the scope of his employment, when no such argument was made at any time before Petitioner’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict?
May 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
05-09-2017 No. 86 Donta Newton v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s determination that trial counsel, appellate counsel and the trial court committed reversible error in permitting alternate jurors to be present during jury deliberations?
05-09-2017 No. 88 Karla Louise Porter v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA improperly apply harmless error review when, rather than considering the effect of an erroneous imperfect self-defense instruction on the jury’s verdict, it applied de novo review to the trial court’s underlying decision to grant the instruction – a question not before it – resolved that issue in favor of the State, and retroactively determined that the jury would have convicted if the trial had unfolded as CSA believed it should have? 2) If so, did CSA err when it found the provision of legally erroneous instruction on imperfect self-defense harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
05-09-2017 No. 83 State of Maryland v. Otis Rich

Issue – Criminal Law – Where the trial court denied Respondent’s coram nobis petition challenging his 2001 conviction without a hearing, in light of Smith v. State, 443 Md. 572 (2015), did CSA err in not remanding this matter to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether Respondent was, in fact, unaware of the nature of a conspiracy charge at the time of his plea?
05-08-2017 No. 89 Timothy Alan Moats v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does an individual’s suspected involvement in a crime and a police officer’s belief that a cell phone could be used in that crime, without more, constitute probable cause to search and seize that individual’s cell phone? 2) Does the good faith exception to illegal searches and seizures apply in this case?
05-08-2017 No. 92 Timothy Stevenson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the search warrant applications establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged crimes and Petitioner’s cell phone, such that the warrant-issuing judges had a substantial basis for finding probable cause? 2) Did the trial court err in denying petitioner’s motion to suppress the fruits of a search conducted pursuant to the warrant? 3) If the warrant-issuing judges did not have a substantial basis for finding probable cause, did police nonetheless rely on the warrants in good faith?
05-08-2017 AG No. 77 In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Tiffany T. Alston
 
05-08-2017 No. 90 National Waste Managers, Inc. Chesapeake Terrace v. Forks of the Patuxent Improvement Association, Inc. et al.

Issues – Zoning & Planning – 1) Did CSA err in failing to reverse the Board’s action and in failing to remand the case with instruction to the Board to grant National Waste Managers’ (“NWM”) fourth variance request? 2) Did CSA err in remanding the case for consideration of whether NWM’s variance was necessary? 3) Did CSA err in construing the county variance statute and in denying preclusive effect to prior adjudications and findings of the Board.
05-05-2017 No. 67 James Patrick Beaman v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal.
05-05-2017 No. 79 Sadie M. Castruccio v. The Estate of Peter A. Castruccio et al.

Issues – Estates & Trusts - 1) Is a Will validly executed if (a) the witnesses did not sign on the same page as the testator, or on one physically connected to it, (b) the Will contained no proper attestation clause, and (c) the Will was not otherwise regular on its face because it expressly stated the pages were initialed but they were not? 2) Can a presumption of due execution attach to such a Will, where the only confirmation that the witnesses signed in the presence of the testator is a common font and consecutive page numbering? 3) Can summary judgment as to the validity of the Will properly be granted where two of the witnesses testified the Will was stapled when they signed, and one testified the pages were initialed, but the Will submitted for probate was never stapled or initialed?
05-05-2017 No. 91 Theodore Scott v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the State fails to prove the existence of a prior conviction for purposes of imposing a mandatory sentence pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law § 14-101, is the State barred from attempting to prove the prior conviction on remand for resentencing under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Md. common law prohibition against double jeopardy? 2) If so, did CSA err in holding that the State was not barred from attempting to prove the existence of a prior conviction of Petitioner on remand for resentencing? 3) Did the trial court err in resentencing when it concluded it did not have the discretion to make the remanded sentence run concurrently with other sentences that were not remanded for resentencing on appeal? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the issue in question 3 had not been preserved for appellate review?
05-04-2017 Bar Admissions
 
05-04-2017 Misc. No. 25 Ukeenan Nautica Thomas v. State of Maryland

Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland Question - Did the circuit court err in declining to ask prospective jurors trial counsel's proposed voir dire question as to whether prospective jurors would 'give greater weight to the testimony of a police officer based on the officer's occupation' and, instead, asked whether the prospective jurors would 'give more or less weight to the testimony of a physician, a clergyman, a firefighter, a police officer, psychiatrist, social worker, electrician or any other witness merely because of their title, profession, education, occupation or employment?'
05-04-2017 No. 80 Stephanie Smith v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Do the holdings in Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 204 (2010), under which a plea agreement is construed according to what a reasonable lay person in the defendant’s position would have understood it to mean, apply when the State challenges a sentence allegedly imposed in violation of Md. Rule 4-243(c)? 2) Would a reasonable lay person in Petitioner’s situation have believed that probation before judgment was precluded by the plea agreement where the agreement was silent as to probation before judgment and required Petitioner to pay restitution? 3) Under Md. Rule 4-243(c), which provides in part that “if [the guilty plea] is accepted, [the judge] may approve the [plea] agreement or defer decision as to its approval or rejection until after such pre-sentence proceedings and investigation as the judge directs,” is the court bound to the plea agreement upon accepting the guilty plea or may it reject the agreement after accepting the plea, and if the latter, did the trial court reject the agreement after accepting Petitioner’s guilty plea? 4) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner’s sentence was imposed in violation of Rule 4-243(c)?
05-04-2017 No. 81 Bashawn Montgomery Ray v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Under this Court’s decisions in Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 204 (2010), which require that a plea agreement is construed according to what a reasonable lay person in the defendant’s position would have understood it to mean, would a reasonable lay person understand a “cap of four years on executed incarceration” to mean that the court could impose suspended time in addition to a four-year term of non-suspended incarceration? 2) Where the trial court bound itself to a “cap of four years on executed incarceration,” but the term “executed” was never explained to Petitioner and he was never informed that the court could impose suspended time in addition to incarceration for up to four years, and the court sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration, with six years suspended, is the sentence imposed on Petitioner illegal?
April 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
04-04-2017 AG No. 59 (2015 T.) & AG No. 12 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bonnie Elizabeth Plank
 
04-04-2017 AG No. 30 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Kotlarsky
 
04-04-2017 No. 82 Eddie Lee Savage, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when it concluded that the defense expert’s neuropsychological examination and DSM-IV diagnosis based on a standard battery of tests were subject to Frye-Reed? 2) Where the unrefuted evidence presented at the Frye-Reed hearing established that the defense expert’s methodology consisted of “validated measures that have scientific acceptance and approval within the community of neuropsychologists” and Petitioner was diagnosed under the DSM-IV, did CSA err when it concluded that the defense failed to meet the Frye-Reed standard? 3) Did CSA err when it affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the defense expert’s conclusion that Petitioner “views the world through an untrusting and suspicious perspective, and often is hyper-vigilant to possible threats”? 4) Did CSA err when it permitted the State in closing argument to impeach Petitioner’s testimony based on his failure to tell the police at any time prior to trial that he acted in self-defense?
04-03-2017 Moment of Silence In Memory of Judge Howard Chasanow
 		  
04-03-2017 No. 84 State of Maryland v. Robert L. Copes, Jr.

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in excluding the evidence recovered by the police?
04-03-2017 AG Nos. 6 & 13 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Denise Leona Bellamy
 
04-03-2017 AG No. 81 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melodie Venee Shuler
 
04-03-2017 No. 76 Stanley Rochkind v. Starlena Stevenson

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err when it determined under Frye-Reed that it is “generally accepted” that lead exposure causes ADHD (general causation)? 2) Did CSA err by conducting its own, non-adversarial Frye-Reed analysis on whether lead exposure causes ADHD rather than remanding to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing? 3) Did CSA err when it failed to apply the “reliable methodology” requirement of Rule 5-702 to the medical expert’s opinion that lead exposure “caused” Respondent’s ADHD (specific causation)?
03-31-2017 No. 77 Fredia Powell et al. v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) After a court finds a criminal defendant incompetent to stand trial and in need of mental health treatment and orders the person committed to DHMH for such treatment under § 3-106(b) of the Criminal Procedure Article (“Crim. Proc.”), does the court have the authority to specify the date by which DHMH must comply with the court’s order? 2) After a court finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial and in need of mental health treatment, does Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights require the individual to be removed from jail or detention and placed in a DHMH mental health facility by the date set in the court’s §3-106(b) commitment order or by a reasonably short time thereafter?
03-31-2017 No. 75 Michael Vito et al. v. Candace Grueff

Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did CSA err by ignoring the intent of the settlor, as expressed in the plain and unambiguous language of the Trust instrument, by holding an amendment clause cannot be used to modify the beneficiary section of the Trust, even though the amendment complied with the plain language of the amendment clause?
03-30-2017 Bar Admissions
 
03-30-2017 No. 66 County Council of Prince George's Count, MD Sitting as the District Council v. Chaney Enterprises Limited Partnership et al.

Issues – Land Use – 1) Does § 22-407 of the Land Use Article (“L.U.”) and Md. Rule 7-201, et seq., authorize the filing of a petition for judicial review as a modality to maintain a judicial challenge to an area master plan? 2) Does L.U. § 22-407 and Md. Rule 7-201 et seq., authorize a non-party to an agency proceeding approving an area master plan to file a petition for judicial review as a modality to maintain a judicial challenge to the approved plan? 3) Does Anne Arundel Co. v. Bell, 442 Md. 539 (2015) require Respondents to demonstrate taxpayer standing in order to maintain a judicial challenge to an area master plan? 4) Did Respondents fail to exhaust administrative remedies? 5) Did CSA err when it invalidated Petitioner’s area master plan? 6) Are the mining restrictions, including the categorical ban on mining, imposed by Petitioners through amendments to the Subregion 5 Master Plan are preempted by the comprehensive and all-encompassing State law regulatory scheme governing surface mining?
03-30-2017 No. 73 Chateau Foghorn LP v. Wesley Hosford

Issue – Real Property – Did CSA err in its preemption analysis by concluding that Section 8-402.1 of the Real Property Article (Md. Code Ann.) does not do “major damage” to the clear and manifest intent of Congress and the express language of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development’s implementing regulations for project-based rental subsidy programs?
March 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
03-07-2017 No. 74 Damar Brown v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in concluding that when the State charges misdemeanors by criminal information in the circuit court no preliminary hearing is required?
03-06-2017 No. 70 Clarksville Residents Against Mortuary Defense Fund, Inc. et al. v. Donaldson Properties et al.

Issues – Zoning & Planning – 1) Was the Board required to make the considerations set forth in Section 130.C of the Zoning Regulations? 2) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” test of Schultz v. Pritts when it failed to conduct an analysis based on the “ordinary or inherent adverse effects” of a Funeral Home? 3) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” of Schultz v. Pritts when it approved the Funeral Home in spite of the surrounding Asian community’s deep-seated cultural aversion to the death industry? 4) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” test of Schultz v. Pritts when it approved the removal of a natural forest along a Tier II stream to accommodate construction of the Funeral Home?
03-06-2017 No. 72 Darrell Bellard v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does Criminal Law Article, § 2-304 give criminal defendants the right to have a jury determine whether they should be sentenced to life with parole or life without the possibility of parole? 2) Is Maryland’s sentencing scheme for life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional?
03-06-2017 No. 71 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Saddlebrook West Utility Company, LLC et al.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Can the procedure for lien creation be read out of the Maryland Contract Lien Act? 2) Has the rule against perpetuities been eliminated in Maryland? 3) Does the holder of an interest in property have standing to challenge the grant of rights in that property to another party by the government?
03-03-2017 No. 63 Jayson Amster v. Rushern L. Baker, County Executive for Prince George's County et al.

Issue – State Government – Does the invocation of the Commercial Exemption in the Md. Public Information Act eliminate the statutory bias favoring disclosure, judicial oversight of facts and efforts to facilitate access to non-commercial or publicly known information?
03-03-2017 No. 65 State of Maryland v. Anthony Allen Crawley

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA improperly vacate Respondent’s corrected sentence, where the trial court, pursuant to Greco v. State, 427 Md. 477 (2012), corrected the illegality in Respondent’s sentence by the addition of a period of probation in order to effectuate the split sentence imposed in the case?
03-03-2017 No. 68 Charles C. Reger v. Washington County Board of Education et al.

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – When a state employee is found to have a compensable injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act and is then found to be entitled to ordinary retirement disability benefits for a different injury, is it inappropriate to absolve the insurer of its liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act and thus prevent the injured worker from obtaining any recovery for a single injury because they recovered for a different injury?
03-02-2017 Bar Admissions
 
03-02-2017 No. 61 Grant Agbara Lewis v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) If an out-of-state witness is in Maryland pursuant to a summons issued by the witness’s home state, and an accompanying judicial order from that state as well as the governing Maryland statute explicitly grant the witness immunity from prosecution in Maryland, may a Maryland court nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over the witness’s prosecution? 2) Is immunity from prosecution waived by failing to file a pre-trial motion under Md. Rule 4-252?
03-02-2017 No. 62 Deer Automotive Group, LLC t/a Liberty Ford v. Barbara Brown, et al.

Issue – Civil Procedure – Is an order of the trial court denying a petition to compel arbitration, the sole issue in a separately-docketed case, a final judgment when there is pending a previously-filed case in the same court addressing all the substantive issues between the same parties in the same transactions?
03-02-2017 No. 64 Miguel A. Fuentes v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Was the evidence legally insufficient to support Petitioner’s convictions where the convictions were contingent on Ms. R’s status as a “mentally defective” individual and the State failed to present evidence that she had been diagnosed with either mental retardation or a mental disorder? 2) Where Petitioner’s knowledge of Ms. R’s purported mental deficiency was a required element of both convictions, was it reversible error for the State to inform the jury at closing argument that Petitioner had admitted to taking advantage of her “mental diminished capacity” in an interview that was never admitted into evidence at trial? 3) Where Ms. R’s ability to understand the conduct of others and to communicate with others was central to the jury’s determination of whether she could be considered a “mentally defective” individual, did the trial court err in refusing to allow the defense to present employment performance evaluations that assessed both of these skills during her employment, when the sexual activity took place?
February 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
02-07-2017 No. 29 Thomas Clifford Wallace v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal.
 
02-07-2017 No. 59 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Maryland Council 3 and AFSCME Local 1072 v. University of Maryland, College Park

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Does a collective bargaining agreement that directs that an employee may only be disciplined for cause abrogate at-will employment? 2) Does a right to process for a public employee abrogate at-will employment?
02-06-2017 AG No. 8 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. James Aloysius Powers
 
02-06-2017 No. 57 Terrence Rogers v. Home Equity USA, Inc.

Issues – Torts – 1) Can an appellate court decline to address the correctness of the trial court’s reasoning when granting summary judgment and then affirm the summary judgment relying on a different factual basis than that relied upon by the trial court where the trial court had discretion to deny summary judgment, the alternative basis required resolution of critical facts in dispute, and the appellate court rendered its decision without the benefit of a complete record? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the grant of summary judgment on a factual basis not relied upon by the trial court, when the factual support was first presented to the trial court by Respondent during the hearing on summary judgment, not allowing Petitioner time to ensure a complete factual record as to the issue? 3) Did CSA err in affirming the grant of summary judgment in reliance on a medical expert’s opinion stated during her deposition which, in turn, relied upon the resolution of a material fact in dispute, when the trial court did not rely upon this opinion as a reason for granting summary judgment, the issues could only be determined by resolving disputes of fact, and the record contained only non-consecutive pages of the deposition transcript? 4) Did CSA invade the province of the jury and make a determination of fact in affirming a grant of summary judgment? 6) Did the trial court err in granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and in denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, on the ground that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof?
02-06-2017 No. 58 Stewart Levitas v. Michael Davon Christian

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in reconsidering all issues in this case when this Court’s order for “reconsideration in light of Roy v. Dackman, 445 Md. 23 (2015)", should only have impacted the issue of expert qualifications? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding the medical expert’s testimony where the record showed that the expert did not have a sufficient factual basis to support either his opinion as to the source of lead exposure or the cause and extent of Respondent’s alleged injuries?
02-03-2017 No. 53 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Paul McGuire Styslinger

Issue – Transportation – Did the ALJ err, in a license-suspension hearing conducted under TR § 205.1(f), by requiring MVA to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a licensee who has refused to take a blood test was driving or attempting to drive when, as the ALJ found, the investigating officer had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the licensee was attempting to drive while impaired?
02-03-2017 No. 52 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Robert Allen Krafft

Issue – Transportation – In an alcohol test refusal, implied consent case, is it enough to support a license suspension that an officer reasonably believed that the licensee, whose vehicle was involved in an accident in front of his house and who is found in an intoxicated condition in his house with the door open had been driving his vehicle while intoxicated or must the MVA establish as much by a preponderance of the evidence?
02-03-2017 No. 56 Joseph Norman, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Does the smell of raw marijuana coming from a car stopped for a traffic violation provide police with reasonable suspicion to believe that all passengers in the car are armed and dangerous, such that a pat down, or Terry frisk, of the passengers is permissible, in the absence of any factors suggesting that any of the passengers posed a risk to the officer?
02-03-2017 No. 44 Oscar Cruz-Quintanilla v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – May a sentencing court consider a criminal defendant’s gang membership when the State presents no evidence (1) that the underlying crime is gang related or (2) that the defendant committed any criminal actions on behalf of the gang?
02-02-2017 Bar Admissions
 		  
02-02-2017 No. 55 State of Maryland v. Andrew Baker

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court failed to articulate sufficiently the basis for its determination of manifest necessity for a retrial? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial?
02-02-2017 No. 78 Cassandra Parker et al. v. William Hamilton et al.

Issue – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the Legislature overrule this Court’s decision in Waddell v. Kirkpatrick, 331 Md. 52 (1993), when it amended Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc § 5-201 in wrongful death cases? 2) As a matter of first impression, and consistent with Piselli v. 75th Street Medical, 371 Md. 188 (2002), does requiring a minor to file a wrongful death claim before he reaches the age of majority violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
January 2017 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
01-09-2017 No. 49 State of Maryland v. Douglas Ford Bey II

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in concluding that Criminal Law § 3-315, which prohibits engaging in a continuing course of conduct with a child, prohibits more than one conviction and sentence per victim, regardless of the duration of the abuse or the type of sexual acts committed?
01-09-2017 No. 45 Clifford Cain, Jr. v. Midland Funding LLC

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that a debt buyer’s pattern of filing thousands of collection actions in Md. courts, and obtaining judgments in those actions, was unrelated to a later putative class action seeking a judicial declaration that those earlier judgments were void and disgorgement of the money so obtained, thus finding the doctrine of waiver inapplicable and permitting the debt buyer to compel arbitration on an individual basis? 2) In concluding that no waiver of the right to arbitrate had occurred, did CSA err in disregarding the tactical timing of the debt buyer’s motion to compel arbitration, which it filed only after a CSA opinion in a related case that was adverse to the debt buyer’s litigation position?
01-06-2017 No. 32 Daniel Rohrer v. Humane Society of Washington County

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does Criminal Law § 10-615 permit the notice and removal of an animal under §§ 10-615(c) and (d) when the animal was seized pursuant to a search and seizure warrant and is in the custody of the State? 2) Must the factors and conditions that permit the removal of an animal pursuant to § 10-615(c) exist at the time the “notice of removal” is given to the owner under § 10-615? 3) Does the denial of a petition for the return of animals pursuant to § 10-615(d)(2) during the pendency of a criminal charge against the owner pursuant to § 10-604 result in the loss of ownership and disposal of those animals, or is the denial temporary until there is a final disposition of the criminal matter?
01-06-2017 No. 47 Richard A. Edwards v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal
01-06-2017 No. 42 United Food and Commercial Workers International Union et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al.

Issue – Labor & Employment – Did CSA err when it held that this case does not involve a labor dispute and the National Labor Relations Act does not preempt Walmart’s claims?
01-05-2017 Bar Admissions
 		  
01-05-2017 AG No. 36 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Allen Ray Dyer and Susan Baker Gray
 
01-05-2017 No. 33 Elvaton Towne Condominium Regime II, Inc. v. William Kevin Rose et ux.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Does Md. law permit and do Petitioner’s Declaration and Bylaws provide authority to implement rules that temporarily suspend unit owners who are delinquent in their condominium assessments from using the community parking lot and pool? 2) Did CSA err by finding that Respondents were precluded from pursuing a declaratory judgment related to Petitioner’s Statement of Lien, which established an interested in Respondents’ real property, and Respondents’ only procedural remedy was to pursue a defense in a money damages consumer collection action pending in the District Court?
December 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
12-06-2016 No. 43

The Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City v. Steven Kougl et al.

Issue – Alcoholic Beverages – Did the Liquor Board correctly interpret its rules to impose upon licensees strict liability for sexual display, performance, or illegal activity conducted on licensed premises, where the pertinent portions of the rules contain no language limiting a licensee’s responsibility to situations where the licensee has actual or constructive knowledge of the offending conduct?
12-06-2016 No. 35

Daniel S. Yuan v. Johns Hopkins University

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Did CSA err in precluding Md. employees from bringing wrongful termination claims based on retaliation for reporting research misconduct, by refusing to recognize the federal law prohibiting research misconduct as a public policy basis, contrary to this Court’s recognition of wrongful termination claims? 2) Did CSA err in precluding Md. employees from bringing conversion claims based on the employer’s conversion of the employee’s personal research materials, by improperly drawing inferences in favor of Respondent when it interpreted Respondent’s research materials policy?
 
12-06-2016 No. 30 Bainbridge St. Elmo Bethesda Apartments, LLC v. White Flint Express Realty Group Limited Partnership, LLLP

Issue – Contract Law – Did CSA undermine Nova Research v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 405 Md. 435 (2008), concerning the limited circumstances under which a contractual indemnity provision can be read as a first-party fee shifting provision overriding the American Rule that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees?
12-05-2016 No. 34
Part 1
Part 2		 Jenny J. Copsey, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lance D. Copsey, Deceased et al. v. John S. Park, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of the negligence of non-party, subsequent treating physicians, including evidence that they were once defendants in the instant suit? 2) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on superseding cause when the negligence of all the treating physicians amounted to one indivisible injury, that being death?
12-05-2016 No. 36

Rahul Gupta v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) When a judge violates Md. Rule 4-326(d) by communicating an ex parte answer to a juror’s question that “pertains to the action”, without disclosing it to the defendant or any lawyer, can the presumption of prejudice be overcome by adding a new standard of review claiming the judge’s ex parte answer was not “substantive” enough? 2) Did the trial court err by not granting pre-trial suppression of Petitioner’s custodial interrogation statement after finding he communicated repeated demands for a lawyer to police officers while he was locked up in a cell just before being interrogated?
 
12-05-2016 No. 41

Maryland Insurance Administration v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Compnay et al.


Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Does the exception in § 19-505(c)(1)(ii) of the Insurance Article permit an insurance company to exclude coverage under a motor vehicle policy that includes personal injury protection for an accident involving a taxicab owned by the insured and for which the owner was unable to obtain personal injury protection coverage? 2) Did the Md. Insurance Commissioner correctly determine that the insured was entitled to the benefit of his motor vehicle policy’s personal injury protection coverage for injuries sustained while driving his taxicab, for which he carried the insurance coverage required under the Transportation Article?
12-02-2016 No. 31 URS Corporation, et al. v. Fort Myer Construction Corporation

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in deciding Respondent’s appeal when there is no final judgment in the case? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the trial judge’s finding that Respondent had maintained its case without substantial justification was clearly erroneous? 3) Did CSA err in holding that the trial judge’s denial of Respondent’s amended motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion?
12-02-2016 No. 38

Michael M. Johnson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court’s grant of Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (“MJOA”) on the express basis of legally insufficient evidence preclude further proceedings under the Md. common law of double jeopardy and/or the Federal Constitutional prohibition upon double jeopardy? 2) Was the trial court’s grant of the MJOA procedurally proper because the trial court has the authority to reconsider and retract the grant of a mistrial? 3) Was the trial court’s grant of the MJOA legally proper because the court retained fundamental jurisdiction to render the ruling? 4) Even assuming arguendo that the grant of the MJOA was procedurally flawed, under the Md. common law of double jeopardy was an acquittal upon the express basis of legally insufficient evidence nevertheless final and binding?


 
12-02-2016 No. 40 State of Maryland v. Jeffrey D. Ebb, Sr.

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court properly deny a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence in which the Petitioner neither (a) claimed innocence, or (b) presented any meaningful “new” evidence?
12-01-2016 No. 37
Docket Nos. 37, 39, and 46 were heard together
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 		Jermaul Rondell Robinson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When an officer detects an “overwhelming smell” of “fresh marijuana” coming from a car, does the officer have probable cause to search the car in light of the fact that possession of less than ten grams of marijuana is now a “civil offense” punishable only by a fine? 2) Did the trial court err when it denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress?
12-01-2016 No. 39
(See above) 		Dexter Williams v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When an officer smells the odor of marijuana from the interior of a car and when the driver and sole occupant admits that he has an unspecified amount of marijuana in the car, does the officer have probable cause to search the car in light of the fact that possession of less than ten grams of marijuana is now a “civil offense” punishable only by a fine? 2) Did the trial court err when it denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress?
12-01-2016 No. 46
(See above) 		Vernon Harvey Spriggs, III v. State of Maryland

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) act outside of its statutory authority by imposing taxes, or mandatory payments, which it was not empowered to enact? 2) Did PSC violate Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to make sufficient findings of fact on the record regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station? 3) Were PSC’s findings regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station under Md. Code Public Utilities § 7-207(e)(2)(ii) supported by substantial evidence in the record?
November 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-07-2016 No. 60 Voters Organized for the Integrity of City Elections (V.O.I.C.E.) et al. v. Baltimore City Elections Board et al.

Election appeal.
11-07-2016 No. 28 State of Maryland et al. v. Jamie Falcon et al.

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did the trial court err in enjoining portions of Chapter 35 of the 2016 Laws of Md. that alter the composition of the Nominating Commission where the law made permanent changes to the composition of the Commission to make it locally appointed? 2) Did the trial court err in treating members of the Nominating Commission as “officers” within the meaning of Article II, § 15 where they do not exercise any portion of the sovereign power of the State?
11-07-2016 No. 26 Accokeek, Mattawoman, Piscataway Creeks Communities Council, Inc. v. The Public Service Commission of Maryland, et al.

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) act outside of its statutory authority by imposing taxes, or mandatory payments, which it was not empowered to enact? 2) Did PSC violate Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to make sufficient findings of fact on the record regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station? 3) Were PSC’s findings regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station under Md. Code Public Utilities § 7-207(e)(2)(ii) supported by substantial evidence in the record?
11-07-2016 No. 22 Dameron Smallwood v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Where a psychiatrist initially determined that Petitioner was criminally responsible for acts leading to criminal charges and that opinion led Petitioner to withdraw a plea of not criminally responsible (“NCR”) and proceed to trial on an agreed statement of facts and where, approximately 25 years later, the same psychiatrist concluded that Petitioner was in fact NCR at the time he committed the acts leading to the criminal charges, is the psychiatrist’s revised opinion about criminal responsibility newly discovered evidence that creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different such that Petitioner is entitled to relief under Criminal Procedure Article § 8-301? 2) Does § 8-301, which governs petitions for writs of actual innocence, contemplate relief for an individual who was convicted of a crime but who later presents newly discovered evidence that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime? 3) May a person who was convicted after a trial on an agreed statement of facts obtain relief under § 8-301? 4) Does an expert’s opinion that Petitioner was NCR, offered many years after the same expert opined that the petitioner was criminally responsible constitute “newly discovered evidence” under § 8-301? 5) Does the revised expert opinion that Petitioner was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime create a substantial or significant possibility that the result in this case may have been different?
11-04-2016 AG No. 68 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jerome Johnson
 
11-04-2016 No. 27 In Re: Cody H.

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does MD’s restitution statute allowing for recovery of lost earnings “as a direct result of the crime” permit the court to order restitution for lost earnings to be earned in the future and for lost earnings for a randomly selected period of time? 2) Did CSA err in finding that competent evidence was introduced to support the claim for eight months of lost wages?
11-04-2016 No. 23 Kor-Ko Ltd. and John E. Rothamel v. Maryland Department of the Environment

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) err by interpreting the definition of “premises” in COMAR § 26.11.15.06 to include the entire commercial park rather than one tenant in the multi-tenant commercial park? 2) Did MDE err by concluding that its “air toxics regulations do not apply” anywhere within the entire commercial park? 3) Did MDE err by not evaluating whether emissions of toxic air pollutants will unreasonably endanger the health of the neighboring tenant in the commercial park?
11-04-2016 Misc. No. 5 In the Matter of the Honorable Pamela J. White
 
11-03-2016 Bar Admissions
 
11-03-2016 AG No. 82 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Willie James Mahone
 
11-03-2016 AG. No. 11 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Philip James Sweitzer
 
11-03-2016 No. 24 Ruben Arnez Collinz v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law –Did the trial court’s method of conducting voir dire fail to reasonably ensure that the court received truthful and accurate responses to its questions, thus constituting an abuse of discretion and violating Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial jury?
11-03-2016 No. 25 Frederick Classical Charter School, Inc. v. Frederick County Board of Education

Issues – Education – 1) Did the State Board err in finding that Petitioner contractually agreed to forego funding proportionate to the Local Board’s transportation spending because its students would not necessarily receive transportation from the school? 2) Did the State Board err by deferring to the Local Board’s interpretation of the contract and application of state law and by misstating its own precedent?
October 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-18-2016 No. 50 Linda H. Lamone, et al. v. Ian Schlakman, et al.

Issues – Election Law – Did the trial court err in entering an ex parte temporary restraining order that requires the Appellants to remove the name of a qualified candidate from the ballot in Baltimore City Councilmanic District No. 12 for the 2016 General Election?
10-13-2016 AG No. 47 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dalton Francis Phillips
 
10-13-2016 No. 18 National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. The Fund For Animals, Inc.

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the actual prejudice standard in Insurance Art. § 19-110 requires an insurer to prove that, had it received timely notice, the outcome would have been different? 2) Did CSA exceed its authority by instructing the trial court on remand to permit and grant a belated motion for judgment, when such a motion was never filed at the time of trial? 3) Did Petitioner waive the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel by failing to plead that defense in its answer or mention it during discovery? 4) Does collateral estoppel apply to the findings made in the Endangered Species Act case?
10-13-2016 No. 13 Sheila M. Breck v. Maryland State Police

Issue – Public Safety – Did CSA err in holding that Extra-Duty Secondary Employment, as that term is used by the Maryland State Police, is not Secondary Employment within the meaning of Public Safety § 3-103(b)?
10-13-2016 No. 20 Gary Alan Glass v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al.

Issues – State Government – 1) Are the trial courts precluded from making any finding that material sought by a person about himself may be severed from an internal affairs file pertaining to a specific, identified law enforcement officer under the Public Information Act? 2) Does the custodian of records for a governmental unit have any responsibility under the Public Information Act to disclose computerized records created and used in the work of the unit, but stored outside the unit, when the governmental unit has the right and practical ability to retrieve the records on demand? 3) Having determined that the custodians knowingly and willfully failed to conduct a legally adequate search in locations where responsive material is likely to be found, was it error for the trial court to decline to order a remedial search in those locations?
10-13-2016 No. 64 (2015 T.) Terrance J. Brown v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Pursuant to the “supplemental rule of interpretation,” where a motions court makes a legal determination without making factual findings, must an appellate court fill in the fact-finding gaps by giving little or no weight to the losing party’s evidence, discrediting the losing party’s witnesses, and resolving any ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the prevailing party? 2) In reversing a suppression ruling, may an appellate court rely on a fact on which conflicting evidence was presented below or must the court accept the version of facts most favorable to the prevailing party? 3) What effect does a motions judge’s failure to make factual findings to support its legal conclusion have on the parameters of the appellate court’s review where conflicting versions of events necessitating factual findings were not presented at the motions hearing? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the motions court’s grant of Petitioner’s suppression motion?
10-11-2016 AG No. 15 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Allen Moore, II.
 
10-11-2016 AG No. 52 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Susan Myra Geller Kirwan
 
10-11-2016 No. 12 Afshin Attar, et al. v. DMS Tollgate, LLC, et al.

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Does Maryland’s special exception jurisprudence require the Baltimore Co. Board of Appeals to define the boundaries of the neighborhood of the proposed special exception before approving that special exception? If so, did the Board of Appeals’ opinion satisfied Maryland’s minimum requirements for articulating the facts found regarding the neighborhood’s boundaries? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the Applicant met its burden of proof, as articulated by the concurring opinion in People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Loyola College in Maryland, 406 Md. 54 (2008)?
10-11-2016 No. 19 Katherine Seley-Radtke v. Ramachandra S. Hosmane

Issue – Torts – In a defamation case brought by a private individual, does the heightened standard for overcoming a conditional privilege, as recognized in Jacron Sales Co., Inc. v. Sindorf, 276 Md. 580 (1976), impose a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence?
10-07-2016 AG Nos. 9 & 25 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Howard Allenbaugh
10-07-2016 No. 17 Albert F. Oliveira, et al. v. Jay Sugarman, et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a board of directors entitled to the presumption of the business judgment rule contained in Md. Code Ann, Corps. & Ass’ns § 2-405.1 when responding to a shareholder demand without presenting evidence that the board acted independently, in good faith, and was reasonably informed as required by Boland v. Boland, 423 Md. 296, 31 A.3d 529 (2011)? 2) May shareholders of a Md. corporation bring direct claims against the board of directors for misrepresentations made in a proxy statement soliciting shareholder votes and for breaches of a shareholder-approved incentive stock plan?
10-07-2016 No. 15 Keisha Ann Hartman v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Where a defendant enters into a non-binding plea agreement in the District Court in which the State agreed to recommend no incarceration, and subsequently notes a de novo appeal from the final judgment of the District Court, does the State remain obligated to make that sentencing recommendation in the Circuit Court if the defendant pleads guilty?
10-07-2016 No. 21 Laura Lynn Hughes v. Stephen Moyer, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Issues – State Personnel & Pensions – 1) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the notice requirements imposed on the State by Md. Code. Ann, State Pers. & Pens. § 11-106(a)(5)? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the minimum level of due process due to Petitioner prior to the State’s deprivation of a property right?
10-06-2016 Bar Admissions
 
10-06-2016 AG No. 7 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandy F. Thomas-Bellamy
 
10-06-2016 No. 16 Eastern Shore Title Company v. Steven J. Ochse, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) May a party recover their attorney’s fees for the exact same matter more than one time as “damages”, even in separate cases? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in the legal standard used to determine the correct amount of the damages award pursuant to the collateral litigation rule for legal expenses incurred? 3) Does the collateral source rule apply to an award of damages for the breach of two separate contracts involving different parties under different circumstances in different courts where separate consideration was paid for each contract?
10-06-2016 No. 14 Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by applying the economic loss doctrine to a limited class of professionals – designers in government contracts – to shield an engineer from liability to a contractor when the engineer knows that its services will be relied upon to the contractor’s detriment if the engineer’s services are negligently performed? 2) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action under Restatement of Torts (Second) § 552 against an engineer who negligently supplied information when all other elements are met and when other professional providers of information are not so protected? 3) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action for negligent misrepresentation against an engineer when the engineer: (a) intended the contractor to rely upon the representations; (b) knew that the contractor would rely upon the design; and (c) knew that the contractor would be harmed if the design was negligently performed?
10-06-2016 No. 7 Richmond D. Phillips v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Under the Frye-Reed standard what is “generally accepted as reliable” in analyzing and interpreting complex mixtures of low template “touch” DNA? 2) In this case, was the Prince George’s County Crime Lab’s methodology “generally accepted as reliable” in the relevant scientific field? 3) Did CSA improperly deviate from Frye-Reed by reaching a conclusion without considering evidence from the relevant scientific community, other than the two opinions expressed at a pretrial hearing? 4) Did CSA err in holding that compliance with § 10-915 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article required certification of meeting a non-existent standard neither party advocated?
September 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-09-2016 No. 6 William Todd Jamison v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal
 
09-09-2016 No. 11 Maryland Board of Physicians, et al. v. Mark R. Geier, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anne Geier, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err in rejecting the defendants’ assertion of absolute quasi-judicial immunity and denying reconsideration of its default order on liability? 2) Did the trial court err in compelling the production of personal financial information in aid of punitive damages despite the defendants’ absolute quasi-judicial immunity? 3) Did the trial court err in granting the Respondents’ motion for sanctions based on the Petitioners’ refusal to produce materials protected by the deliberative process, executive, attorney-client, and attorney-work-product privileges and the mandatory nondisclosure requirement of Health Occupations § 14-410?
09-09-2016 No. 52 (2015 T.) State of Maryland v. Tyshon Leteek Jones (Reargument)

Issue – Criminal Law – In deciding this case, should the Court re-consider its holding in Roary v. State, 385 Md. 217, 226-36, 867 A.2d 1095, 1100-6 (2005), as to whether first-degree assault may serve as a predicate for second-degree felony murder?
09-08-2016 AG No. 27 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu
 
09-08-2016 AG No. 54 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Shakaira Simone Mollock
 
09-08-2016 No. 94 (2015 T.) Kevon Spencer v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court commit reversible error by reseating three jurors who had been struck by the defense where there was no evidence to support a finding of racial discrimination and where counsel’s explanations advanced the defense’s strategy and have previously been accepted by the courts as valid, race-neutral explanations for striking a juror? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of specific intent for a conviction of attempted second-degree murder?
09-08-2016 No. 4 State of Maryland v. Tevin Hines

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a joint trial, was the trial court within its discretion in admitting a co-defendant’s exculpatory statement which did not mention Respondent, but did mention the street where Respondent lived? 2) Was any error in admitting the co-defendant’s statement harmless?
09-08-2016 No. 2 SPAW, LLC v. City of Annapolis

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err by failing to dismiss the city’s civil citation for a municipal infraction against Petitioner under § 6-103 of the Local Government Article (“L. G.”) and awarding the city broad injunctive relief? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that abatement of a municipal infraction is not a “penalty” under L. G. § 6-110 for the purpose of applying the one year statute of limitations in § 5-107 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article? 3) Did the trial court err by ignoring newly amended Md. Rules 2-501, which excludes the filing of a motion for summary judgment “after evidence is received at trial on the merits,” when the trial court granted summary judgment in the middle of trial before Petitioner could either respond in writing or present any evidence? 4) Did the trial court err in holding that municipal infractions were civil matters subject to Title 2 of the Md. Rules?
09-07-2016 No. 3 Daniela Bottini, et al. v. Department of Finance, Montgomery County, Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA erroneously conclude that a seized bank account was “money” within the meaning of Md.’s CDS forfeiture statute where different deadlines for filing a forfeiture petition apply to “money” than to other types of tangible or intangible personal property? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply to Petitioners’ seized bank account the longer post-conviction forfeiture petition filing deadline for “money”?
09-07-2016 No. 8 Roderick Colvin v. Statet of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s conclusion that, upon request for a jury poll, polling the jury foreperson is unnecessary to ensure a unanimous verdict? 2) Is the claimed defect in the polling procedure cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence?
09-07-2016 No. 9 Hanover Investments, Inc. v. Susan J. Volkman

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA erroneously impose new standards under Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. (“CJP”) § 3-409(c) by depriving the trial court of all discretion to adjudicate a declaratory judgment action when there is a concurrent proceeding? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply, and thereby alter, the standards under CJP § 3-409(a) and (c) by concluding that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to support the trial court’s findings of unusual and compelling circumstances?
09-07-2016 No. 10 John T. Mitchell v. Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration

Issues – Constitutional Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that personalized vanity plates are a non-public forum in which motorists who pay the fee to express their 7-character message may be censored despite expressing otherwise constitutionally protected private speech? 2) Did CSA err in choosing to censor a Spanish word based on the most offensive definition it could imagine, despite the existence of innocuous definitions of the term?
09-01-2016 Bar Admissions  
09-01-2016 AG No. 19 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Steven Lee Shockett
 
09-01-2016 No. 1 Wendy Cane v. EZ Rentals

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner the opportunity to assert and prove a defense under the Rent Escrow Statute to the landlord’s summary ejectment action? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s defense seeking rent offsets in the summary ejectment action?
09-01-2016 No. 5 Trendon Washington v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal