SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2025
Tuesday, April 7, 2026:
Bar Admissions
No. 38 Rosalyn Walston v. Paul Lindsay
Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Whether the circuit court’s issuance of an interim protective order in a matter on appeal was permissible under the Maryland Rules and statues governing the issuance of temporary protective orders and, if not, whether the court’s issuance of a protective order constituted an exercise of original jurisdiction such that the final judgment was not rendered in the “exercise of appellate jurisdiction” under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-302(a).
No. 42 State of Maryland v. Kyeem Antonio King
Issue – Criminal Law – Did ACM err by holding that Abruquah v. State, 483 Md. 637 (2023), required firearm identification 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?
No. 46 State of Maryland v. William Thornton and James Dunbar
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?
Wednesday, April 8, 2026:
No. 49 Eritrean Orthodox Tweahdo Diocese of USA and Canada v. Abune Sinoda
Issue – Real Property – Did the Circuit Court err when it affirmed the District Court’s judgment dismissing petitioner’s wrongful detainer action under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine?
No. 50 State of Maryland v. Marconi Palmer, Jr.
Issues – Transportation – 1) Did ACM err by requiring that the State present “specific evidence” that the defendant was under the influence or impaired by alcohol at the time the defendant was driving, rather than relying on rational inferences from the evidence? 2) Did ACM wrongly conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain Mr. Palmer’s convictions for DUI and DWI where he was found intoxicated at the scene of a single-car accident, and there was circumstantial evidence that he was the driver of the vehicle?
No. 52 In re: K.B.
Issue – Family Law – Whether the juvenile court erred in establishing a permanency plan at the initial CINA review hearing that included both reunification and adoption.
Thursday, April 9, 2026:
No. 51 Howard Nathanson, et al. v. Tortoise Capital Advisors, L.L.C., et al.
Issue – Corporations & Associations – Did ACM err in its application of the demand futility rule set forth in Werbowsky v. Collumb, 362 Md. 581 (2001)?
No. 53 Catherine Torney v. Towson University
Issue –Torts – Did ACM err in its description and application of Maryland law regarding a landowner’s duty to protect an invitee from a shooting on the landowner’s property?
No. 54 Board of Education for Wicomico County v. Rhonda B. Sturm
Issues – Torts – 1) Is the denial of a motion to dismiss, filed on behalf of a school board based on the immunity afforded by Article VIII, § 3 of Maryland’s Constitution, immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine? 2) Did the Child Victims Act of 2023 (“CVA”) revive claims for child sex abuse against boards of education where the alleged victim had no claim to be revived at the time of the alleged abuse because Article VIII, § 3 of Maryland’s Constitution barred the claim? 3) Did the CVA retroactively waive the constitutional immunity afforded to Maryland’s Boards of Education? 4) If the CVA retroactively waived the immunity afforded boards of education for incidents that occurred before July 1, 1971, was that waiver effective, since the General Assembly provided no mechanism for the payment of judgments where boards had no insurance before July 1, 1971 and the evidence below was that there is no insurance product currently in the marketplace for boards to purchase for incidents that happened before July 1, 1971?
After April 9, 2026, the Court will recess until May 4, 2026.
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 8:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK