PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2025
Granted November 24, 2025
Joseph Basso v. Jose Rodriguez, et al. – Case No. 45, September Term, 2025
Issue – Maryland Rules – Under Maryland Rule 1-341, where a court finds that the conduct of a party in maintaining or defending any proceeding was in bad faith or without substantial justification, may the court require the offending party and/or attorney to pay reasonable attorney’s fees to the adverse party, where the adverse party is represented by counsel under the terms of a contingency fee agreement?
State of Maryland v. William Thornton and James Dunbar – Case No. 46, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Law – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Did ACM err in holding that Abruquah v. State¸ 483 Md. 637 (2023), required firearm identification evidence to be excluded when the trial occurred before Abruquah, the issue was not preserved for appellate review, and the State, as the proponent, had no opportunity to litigate the evidence’s reliability in a Daubert-Rochkind hearing? 2) Did ACM err by holding that the unobjected-to admission at Respondents’ pre-Abruquah trial of expert testimony identifying a particular firearm as the source of ballistics evidence was “clear and obvious” error for purposes of plain-error review? 3) Did ACM err and abuse its discretion in reversing Respondents’ convictions under plain-error review? From the conditional cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 4) Can an unjustified, intentional closure of the courtroom during a critical stage of the trial proceedings ever be forgiven as “de minimis” or “trivial”? 5) Does a “partial” unjustified, intentional closure warrant a different constitutional analysis from a “complete” closure?
In re: B.CD. & B.CB. – Case No. 47, September Term, 2025
Issues – Family Law – 1) Does a parent neglect their child – i.e. place them at “substantial risk of harm” – when they act in line with Maryland’s Safe Haven Program? 2) Is a CINA neglect finding a “civil liability” against which the Safe Haven Program provides a shield?
Andrew Campbell Founds v. State of Maryland – Case No. 48, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the trial court’s denial of Mr. Founds’s motion to suppress evidence? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support Mr. Founds’s convictions for three possessory offenses?
Denied/Dismissed November 26, 2025
The order denying or dismissing the petitions can be found here.
107 Terrapin Ln. v. Cove Creek Club – Pet. No. 305
Aguirre, Marc Anthony – Pet. No. 319
Ajebon v. Ferguson – Pet. No. 275
Asano v. Asante – Pet. No. 258
Banks v. Brown – Pet. No. 272
Barry v. Schwender – Pet. No. 296
Benn v. Menapace – Pet. No. 268
Booze, Dwayne A. v. State – Pet. No. 294
Brown, Tia v. State – Pet. No. 308
Bryson v. State Employees Credit Union – Pet. No. 255
Butcher, Edward v. State – Pet. No. 295
Clark, Antowan v. State – Pet. No. 301
Epps, Lenny v. State – Pet. No.282
Errera v. Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker – Pet. No. 260
Facundim v. Shepardson – Pet. No. 285
Germain, Jean Bernard v. State – Pet. No. 270
Haileselassie v. Haileselassie – Pet. No. 293
Harmon v. Kaiser Permanente Insurance – Pet. No. 257
Humphries v. Williams – Pet. No. 286
In re: Estate of Vogel – Pet. No. 265
In re: Jc.F. and Jx.F. – Pet. No. 267
In the Matter of Hernandez – Pet. No. 329
In the Matter of the Boyce Living Trust – Pet. No. 263
Jhingory v. Jingory – Pet. No.248
Joiner, Michael v. State – Pet. No. 200
Jones, Richard v. State – Pet. No. 304
Le’Sure v. LeSure – Pet. No. 237
Lightner-El, Frederick v. State – Pet. No. 278
Lockett v. TM Associates – Pet. No. 279
Maxwell v. Maxwell – Pet. No. 242
McCaden, Arthur v. State – Pet. No. 281
Murphy, Robert Lee v. State – Pet. No. 310
Neblett v. Duke – Pet. No. 345
Nunez, John v. State – Pet. No. 271
O’Reilly v. Knaup – Pet. No. 273
Paige, LaBria v. State – Pet. No. 302
Patriot Medical Lab. v. Dept. of Health – Pet. No. 289
Paul v. Office of the Medical Examiner – Pet. No. 303
Robinson v. Capitol One – Pet. No. 292
Romano v. Cornerstone Property Mgmt. – Pet. No. 274
Rufai v. Rufai – Pet. No. 269
Sadowski v. Sadowski – Pet. No. 264
Schwartz v. Baltimore Cnty. Government – Pet. No.252
Speight v. Rosenberg, Meyer, Ansell, Montgomery & Savitz – Pet. No. 300
Vogel v. Vogel – Pet. No. 266
Webber v. Ward – Pet. No. 280