SEPTEMBER TERM 2020 Webcasts
Videos of arguments from earlier term years are available upon request. The Court's archive of oral argument videos covers the period from May 2007 to the present.
June 2021 Oral Arguments
May 2021 Oral Arguments
April 2021 Oral Arguments
March 2021 Oral Arguments
February 2021 Oral Arguments
January 2021 Oral Arguments
December 2020 Oral Arguments
November 2020 Oral Arguments
October 2020 Oral Arguments
September 2020 Oral Arguments
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 protected]. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
| June 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, the June 3, 2021 oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. The June 4, 2021 oral arguments were held in the Court of Appeals courtroom. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 06-04-2021 | AG No. 14 | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Celestine Tatung |
| 06-04-2021 | No. 57 | Jared Ross v. Jennifer Ross Issues - Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err by admitting into evidence an expert witness’ custody evaluation pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702 without a prior Frye-Reed or Daubert hearing as requested by Petitioner? 2) Was the erroneous admission of a custody evaluation ordered under Md. Rule 9-205.3 such an abuse of discretion that prejudice must be presumed, including in the appellate resolution of issues related to Petitioner’s credibility? 3) Did the trial court err by refusing to hear from competent children the reasons for their custodial preferences and their testimony regarding relevant facts? |
| 06-04-2021 | No. 58 | Brawner Builders, Inc., et al. v. Maryland State Highway Administration Issues – State Finance & Procurement – 1) Did CSA and the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals (“MSBCA”) misconstrue the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) definition of a “Procurement Contract” and thereby erroneously conclude that the subcontractor lacked standing to pursue its separate claims against the Maryland State Highway Administration (“SHA”)? 2) Did CSA and MSCBA improperly conclude that “untimely notice” was a jurisdictional bar to Petitioner’s and the subcontractor’s claims rather than an affirmative defense subject to the doctrine of equitable estoppel? 3) Did CSA and MSCBA err when they decided issues of material fact regarding Petitioner’s “notice” and the factual issue of the existence of a contract between the subcontractor and SHA by disregarding SHA’s admissions that claims were pending, would be responded to, and that an administrative process was ongoing? |
| 06-03-2021 | Nos. 54 & 59 | MAS Associates, LLC, et al. v. Harry S. Korotki Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Associates v. Korotki, 465 Md. 457 (2019) (“MAS Assoc.”), by entering judgment on two counts – unjust enrichment and wage payment – that were never appealed after the 2015 trial and were the subject of a final, enrolled judgment? 2) Did the trial court exceed this Court’s decision and mandate in MAS Assoc. by entering judgment against a former party who was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction? 3) In adjusting damages awarded under the Maryland Wage and Collection Law, did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding no bona fide dispute and awarding no attorney’s fees or treble damages? 4) In adjusting damages awarded under unjust enrichment, did the trial court abuse its discretion in calculating prejudgment interest from the date of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner’s resignation rather than the date he made the loan? 5) Did the trial court err by not declaring judgment or adjusting damages under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act or the Md. Declaratory Judgment Act? |
| 06-03-2021 | No. 52 | Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, et al. v. Commissioners of Worcester County, Maryland, et al. Issues – Tax-Property – 1) Are Md. Code §6-305 and §6-306 of the Tax-Property Article (“TP”) – which provide for mandatory real property tax setoffs for certain municipalities, but only optional tax setoffs for other municipalities, including Ocean City – constitutional under Article XI-E, §1 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires the General Assembly to “act in relation to the …government or affairs of any … municipal corporation only by general laws which shall in their terms and in their effect apply alike to all municipal corporations”? 2) Should the unconstitutionally non-uniform provisions of TP §6-305 and §6-306 be severed to the end that all municipalities in this State should be entitled to receive mandatory tax setoffs from the counties in which they are located, upon a showing by a municipality that it performs services of a type provided by the county (i.e., upon a showing that it is entitled to setoff)? |
| 06-03-2021 | No. 56 | Advanced Radiology, P.A., et al. v. William James Barton, Jr., et al. Issues – Torts – 1) If negligent failure timely to diagnose cancer is alleged to be the proximate cause of a patient’s death, may a jury reasonably find proximate cause when the sole causation expert for the plaintiffs fails to opine that, more likely than not, the death was the proximate cause of a negligent delay in diagnosis? 2) May a jury in these circumstances nonetheless reasonably infer proximate cause from the expert’s recital of survival statistics that included a probability of death at the time of the allegedly late diagnosis at no greater than 34%? 3) Does CSA’s reversal of the trial judge’s entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict indirectly allow recovery for diminished chance of survival, a recovery that is not allowable under Maryland law? |
| May 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 05-11-2021 | Misc. No. 14 | In the Matter of the Application of Leonid Nemirovsky for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
| 05-11-2021 | No. 51 | Howard Jimmy Davis v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Procedure – As a matter of first impression, does a trial court determining whether to transfer jurisdiction of a criminal case to the juvenile court discharge its responsibility under Md. Code § 4-202(d)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Article to consider the “amenability of the child to treatment in an institution, facility, or program available to delinquent children” by considering the child’s eligibility for services in the juvenile system, or does the court also need to consider the child’s rehabilitative potential? |
| 05-10-2021 | AG No. 71 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Morgan Brooks |
| 05-10-2021 | No. 55 | Darrell Leonard Mainor v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court abuse its discretion and violate Petitioner’s right to present information in mitigation of punishment where the court insisted that petitioner be sentenced before it discharged the jury and refused to postpone sentencing for either a presentence investigation or the appearance and testimony of Petitioner’s mother on his behalf? |
| 05-10-2021 | No. 25 | Larry Lee v. WinnCompanies LLC Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the Circuit Court commit an error of law in affirming the District Court’s denial of a motion for a new hearing after finding, on the basis of the record before the trial court, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion? 2) Did the Circuit Court err in finding an appeal untimely when, pursuant to Rule 7-104(c), the Petitioner noted an appeal to a summary ejectment action within 30 days after the disposition of a timely filed post-judgment motion? |
| 05-07-2021 | No. 50 | Darwin Naum Monroy Madrid v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the defense of duress was “unavailable … as a matter of law” to Petitioner because of his gang involvement? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of “some evidence” required to generate the defense of duress? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress his statement to police because: (a) the interrogating officer’s statements leading to Petitioner’s confession constituted an impermissible inducement; (b) Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that Petitioner, a minor with no prior experience with the criminal justice system, knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights following a 40-second advisement of his rights which did not include a written waiver; (3) under the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner’s confession was involuntary? |
| 05-07-2021 | No. 53 | Jonathan Torin Kidder v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err by upholding the trial court’s method of jury selection, which was disapproved but allowed in the Court’s reported decision in Williams v. State, 246 Md.App. 308 (2020), whereby the trial court excluded prospective jurors from the venire based on shared characteristics, without a finding of bias? |
| 05-06-2021 | AG No. 10 | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christopher Edward Vasiliades |
| 05-06-2021 | No. 48 | RDC Melanie Drive, LLC v. Mark E. Eppard, et al. Issues – Real Property – 1) As a matter of first impression, is the Amended Declaration enforceable against Petitioner/Cross-Respondent where the Amended Declaration adds new restrictions and the language of the amendment clause of the Original Declaration does not expressly permit changes which add new restrictions? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in ruling that the Amended Declaration does not add additional restrictions to Lot 6, where it plainly adds new restrictions prohibiting golf course uses and driving ranges? 3) Is the enforcement of the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance,” or any amendment thereto, subject to review on an objective standard? 4) Have Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims that the use of Lot 6 as a driving range will be “noxious or offensive” or cause “annoyance or nuisance” been fully litigated before the Board of Appeals and are those claims precluded by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata? If not, is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to a trial on those issues and claims? 5) Are the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other owners” too vague to be enforced? 6) Does the Original Declaration prohibit golf course uses, driving ranges, or other commercial activity under a uniform plan of development? 7) Is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to summary judgment on the Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims arising from Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (m) of the Original Declaration and from the Zajic Declaration? 8) In this declaratory judgment action, were the trial court and CSA obliged to review each provision of the applicable covenants addressed by the parties in the pleadings and to declare the rights and obligations of the parties based upon the language of the instruments, read together in accordance with their express terms and the intent thereof as stated in the instruments? 9) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to render an analysis whether the Original Declarations, by their terms, intended only a residential and agricultural use subdivision? 10) Did the trial court and CSA err by declaring that the issues arising under the Zajic Declaration were moot under the circumstances of this case? 11) Did the trial court and CSA err in their interpretation that the Original Declaration permits a boundary line adjustment with a non-subdivision lot for the purpose of permitting resort and golf course uses on land intended for only residential and agricultural use? 12) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to address Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ request for injunctive relief in light of their conclusion that the Amended Declaration is a valid prohibition of driving range development? |
| April 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 04-13-2021 | E.N. v. T.R. Issue – Family Law – When a de facto parentship is formed and fostered at the behest of one legal parent without the knowledge or consent of the other legal parent, does the non-consenting parent retain her superior claim to custody, protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, against the de facto parent, thereby requiring the de facto parent to prove that the non-consenting parent is unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist? | |
| 04-13-2021 | No. 45 | Angel Enterprises Limited Partnership, et al. v. Talbot County, Maryland, et al. Issues – Local Codes – 1) Did the Board of Appeals (“Board”) violate Petitioners’ due process rights by requiring Petitioners to bear the burden of proof (including the burdens of persuasion and going forward with the evidence) to explain Respondent’s basis for its actions and also to disprove the propriety and amount of Respondent’s civil penalties? 2) Did the Board err in imposing penalties on a daily, continuing basis, including for days when no violative conduct occurred, and while Petitioners were exercising their right to challenge Respondent’s allegations and attempt to impose penalties? 3) Did the Board err in finding that Respondent has the legal authority to impose continuing violation penalties where the Express Powers Act limits the County’s ability to impose fines and does not authorize penalties for continuing violations? 4) Did the Board err in determining that the civil penalties imposed by Respondent were stayed upon the filing of Petitioners’ appeal pursuant to Talbot County Code §§ 58-12A(3) and 20-6B(3)? 5) Are the civil penalties sought by Respondent unconstitutionally excessive in violation of the Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 6) Should an appellate court decide an issue of judicial estoppel that occurred during the judicial review period after an administrative decision (and not remand to the administrative body for review)? |
| 04-12-2021 | AG No. 11 | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Edward Emad Moawad |
| 04-12-2021 | No. 49 | Town of Riverdale Park v. Mamoun K. Ashkar, et al. Issues – State Government - 1) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s ruling that Respondent had failed to prove that Petitioner’s business decision was pretextual and not based on discrimination? 2) Did CSA err in directing that the case be remanded so that the jury’s verdict could be reinstated, where the trial court expressly ruled that Respondent had failed to prove damages in any non-speculative manner, and where the verdict is, in any event, subject to a statutory cap lower than the amount of the verdict? |
| 04-12-2021 | No. 40 | D'Angelo Wright v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in giving a flight instruction where the sole contested issue in the case was the identity of the person who committed the crime and fled the scene? |
| 04-09-2021 | AG No. 72 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas McCarthy, Jr. |
| 04-09-2021 | No. 46 | Charles Edward Wallace v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When reviewing whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, is it proper for a reviewing court to evaluate prejudice by determining whether deficient performance would have been ameliorated had the error been brought to the trial court’s attention? 2) Did CSA err in advising post-conviction courts that the cumulative effect theory – i.e., the theory that prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), may be found by considering the collective impact of multiple instances of deficient performance – has “exceedingly narrow” application? 3) Did CSA err in holding that defense counsel’s failure to object to an erroneous instruction on attempted second-degree murder required the reversal of only that conviction, that defense counsel did not prejudice Petitioner when she failed to object to the disclosure to the jury that Petitioner had previously been convicted of a crime of violence, and/or that trial counsel’s failure to object to alleged bad-acts/other-crimes evidence constituted neither deficient performance nor conduct prejudicing Petitioner? |
| 04-08-2021 | No. 47 | David Esteppe, et al. v. Baltimore City Police Department Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Under the first prong of the scope of employment test, does a police officer act in the scope of employment when he performs traditional law enforcement functions with mixed motives? 2) Did CSA err when it declined to rule upon Respondent’s argument that Petitioner should be judicially estopped from arguing that the officer’s motivation was professional when, at the liability trial, Petitioner argued repeatedly that the officer’s motivation was purely personal and the trial court accepted that argument in order to find the officer liable for civil conspiracy? |
| March 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 03-08-2021 | AG No. 12 | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Russel A. Neverdon, Sr. |
| 03-08-2021 | No. 41 | Kenneth Mahai v. State of Maryland Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Does Article IV, § 14A of the Maryland Constitution, which authorizes CSA to exercise only intermediate appellate jurisdiction, preclude CSA from exercising final appellate jurisdiction by issuing a summary denial of an application for leave to appeal without addressing the issues raised, which has been held to bar further appellate review under Md. Code § 12-202 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”). 2) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to jury instructions regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? 3) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to voir dire questions that shifted the burden of determining bias to the venirepersons? 4) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to file a motion for modification of sentence and a motion for sentence review? |
| 03-08-2021 | No. 35 | Kevin Whittington v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA, in a case of first impression, err in holding that the placement and use of a GPS tracking device was legal because a GPS Order issued under Md. Code § 1-203.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article satisfied the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applied in this case? 3) Did the issuing judge have a substantial basis for finding probable cause from exclusively circumstantial evidence of Petitioner’s criminal activities that provided a sufficient nexus to support a warrant to search his home, car, and person? |
| 03-05-2021 | No. 43 | Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, et al. v. Donna Kemp Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does the definition of a “lender” in Md. Code § 12-101(f) of the Commercial Law Article (“CL”) as “a person who makes a loan” include a mortgage purchaser and a mortgage servicer who do not make loans? 2) Is the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act limited to policing methods of collection and does it exempt claims for collector’s unlawful claims for amounts barred by Maryland law? 3) Does CL § 14-202(8) exclude novel collection practices? |
| 03-05-2021 | No. 30 | Larry S. Chavis, et al. v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A.; Bryione K. Moore, et al. v. Peak Management LLC Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does using a wage garnishment to collect excess post-judgment interest and post-judgment filing fees constitute a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code §14-202(8) of the Commercial Law Article? 2) Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for class certification, without conducting a hearing, when the undisputed evidence presented to the Court established that the identity of every class member can be established from the Respondent’s records? |
| 03-04-2021 | No. 38 | Clifford Cain, et al. v. Midland Funding LLC Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer? 3) Does Federal tolling under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(d) or class action tolling from a prior Federal action apply to a subsequent Maryland state action? 4) Did CSA have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s non-final orders? |
| 03-04-2021 | No. 39 | Tasha Gambrell v. Midland Funding LLC Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer? |
| February 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 02-05-2021 | No. 37 | State of Maryland v. Sean Morris Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does the trial court have discretion to admit testimony regarding a witness’ fear in the absence of a prior inconsistent statement by that witness? 2) If the trial court has that discretion, does the trial court have the discretion to admit testimony regarding the witness’ fear on direct examination in an appropriate case? 3) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in admitting brief testimony regarding fear, which made no mention of Respondent, during the direct examination of two witnesses? |
| 02-05-2021 | No. 42 | Toni Tengeres v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s timely Motion to Reinstate, where good cause was shown, pursuant to the liberal standard for reinstatement in Md. Rule 7-112? 2) Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s due process rights by dismissing her de novo appeal for failure to appear at a status conference, where no critical issues would be decided? |
| 02-04-2021 | No. 36 | Robert F. Cherry, Jr., et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City Issues – Municipal Codes – 1) Did the trial court err in its reliance on Appellee’s actuarial expert who, in calculating breach of contract damages, failed to estimate what retirement benefit increases would have been owed by implementing the statutory plan contract as written and applied for decades? 2) Did the trial court err in computing breach of contract damages when it misinterpreted the actuarial funding required under Appellee’s statutory pension contract? 3) Did the trial court err in holding that Appellee did not breach its statutory pension contract with the active employee members of the retirement plan by the passage of Baltimore City Ordinance 10-306, which reduced promised pension benefits? |
| 02-04-2021 | Misc. No. 8 | In re: Anthony D. Walker and Denicia P. Walker Certified Question from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland Question: Can a community association’s lien perfected under the Maryland Contract Lien Act, Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. §§ 14-201 et seq., secure unpaid damages, costs of collection, late charges, and attorney’s fees arising under the association’s governing documents that accrue subsequent to the recordation of the lien? |
| 02-04-2021 | No. 32 | Neal Lawrence, IV v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – Is wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about one’s person a strict liability crime? |
| 02-01-2021 | AG No. 3 | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Allan Fineblum |
| 02-01-2021 | Misc. No. 9 | Benjamin Caleb Trott v. State of Maryland Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland Question: Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress? |
| 02-01-2021 | No. 33 | Keith Merryman and Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 146 v. University of Baltimore Issues – Administrative Law – 1) Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have jurisdiction when the parties have contractually agreed to submit grievances regarding the interpretation of their collective bargaining agreement to the Office for adjudication? 2) Did CSA err in finding that because the remedy would involve awarding additional leave hours, the grievance constituted a complaint pertaining to the “general level of fringe benefits” prohibited by Md. Code §13-201(c) of the Education Article? |
| January 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 01-08-2021 | AG No. 6 | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mitzi Elaine Dailey |
| 01-07-2021 | No. 23 | Jamel Clark v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – When a defendant, who was found in possession of a single firearm, is convicted of both possession of an assault weapon, in violation of Md. Code §4-303(a)(2) of the Criminal Law Article (“Crim. Law”), and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony involving a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of Crim. Law §5-622(b), must the convictions and sentences be merged? |
| 01-07-2021 | No. 29 | State of Maryland, et al. v. Valerie Rovin Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Do common law absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity and statutory immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act bar tort claims against prosecutors and law enforcement officers arising from an arrest based on the State’s Attorney’s and District Court Commissioner’s legal determination of probable cause? 2) Can law enforcement officers be civilly liable in tort when they sought an arrest warrant on the advice of the State’s Attorney and made an arrest with a warrant based on a judicial officer’s determination that the arrestee’s alleged conduct amounted to a crime, when that determination was later held to be legally erroneous? |
| 01-05-2021 | No. 26 | Effrem Antoine Conner v. State of Maryland Issue – Code of Judicial Conduct – Given that Drug Court is a non-adversarial, team-based treatment program in which participants are expected to openly discuss relapses and other setbacks in their recovery, should a judge who supervised a defendant in Drug Court generally recuse from the defendant’s subsequent violation of probation proceeding when the conduct that allegedly violated the conditions of probation was the subject of Drug Court hearings, meetings, and correspondence? |
| 01-05-2021 | No. 27 | Whitney Wheeling, et al. v. Selene Finance LP, et al. Issues – Real Property – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a defendant’s violation of Md. Code § 7-113 of the Real Property Article does not give rise to a cause of action unless the protected resident physically vacates the residential property? 2) Did CSA err in holding that a consumer’s claim for emotional damage, such as fear, anxiety, anger, and accompanying physical manifestations, does not adequately allege an injury to state a private cause of action under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”)? 3) Did CSA err in holding that attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of a defendant’s unfair and deceptive misrepresentations made in violation of the MCPA do not constitute a recoverable injury supporting a private cause of action? |
| 01-04-2021 | No. 28 | State of Maryland v. Anthony George Ablonczy Issue – Criminal Procedure – Should accepting a jury as ultimately empaneled waive any prior objection to the trial court’s refusal to propound voir dire questions? |
| December 2020 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 12-08-2020 | No. 21 | Ronnie Hunt v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the fact that Joseph Kopera’s false credentials were discovered over a decade later by another attorney in a different case was enough for the trial court to find that Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to act with due diligence, as is required to prevail under Md. Code §8-301(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Does CSA’s holding in this case conflict with this Court’s “considered dicta” in State v. Hunt, 443 Md. 238 (2015)? |
| 12-08-2020 | No. 22 | K. Hovnanian Homes of Maryland, LLC, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace, et al. Issues – Municipal Corporations – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a “strong mayor” city charter abrogates the common law of municipal contracts, which gives a city council power to enter into contracts by motion or resolution without the mayor’s signature? 2) Did CSA err by holding that under the separation of powers doctrine, a “strong mayor” city charter invalidates a recoupment agreement entered into by a city council without the mayor’s signature? |
| 12-07-2020 | No. 14 | Travelocity.com LP n/k/a TVL LP v. Comptroller of Maryland Issues – Tax-General – 1) Did Petitioner’s activities in Maryland during the periods covered by the assessment (the “Periods in Issue”) result in the provision of a “right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest,” within the meaning of Maryland Code, Tax-General Article (“T-G”) § 11-101(k)(1)(ii)? 2) Was Petitioner a “Vendor” during the Periods in Issue within the meaning of T-G § 11-101(o)? 3) Did the Tax Court fail to give effect to Chapter 3, Acts of 2015, which altered the definitions of “Tangible personal property” and “Vendor”? 4) Did the Tax Court err in determining that the base for calculating the sales tax had to be reduced by the “Tax Recovery Charge”? 5) Did the Tax Court err in deciding that T-G § 13-1102(b) did not apply to permit Respondent to assess sales taxes beyond the four-year limitation period? 6) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner sold its customers the right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest, a transaction subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(ii), when the customers reserved the room on Petitioner’s website and paid Petitioner for the room reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 7) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner rented to its customers, on a short-term basis, passenger cars or other vehicles, a transaction that is subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(i) when the customers paid Petitioner for the rental car reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 8) Did the Tax Court correctly conclude that because Petitioner sold tangible personal property located in Maryland, Petitioner was required to collect and remit sales-and-use tax as a vendor engaged in the business of a retail vendor or out-of-state vendor under T-G § 11-701? 9) Did the Tax Court err in holding that sales-and-use tax was not due on the lump sum fee for service charges and estimated taxes that Petitioner charged its customers, when the sales-and-use tax was not separately stated from the service charges and the portion attributable to the estimated tax was not remitted to Respondent but paid to a third party? |
| 12-07-2020 | No. 20 Oral arguments were un-sealed on 05-16-2022 | In Re: Special Investigation Misc. 1064 |
| 12-04-2020 | Nos. 15, 16, & 17 | State of Maryland v. Karon Sayles, Bobby Jamar Johnson, & Daniel Dalik Oxely Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA wrongly conclude that a jury has the power to nullify the verdict and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when, in response to a jury note, it told the jury that it could not resort to jury nullification? 2) If the trial court abused its discretion when it responded to the jury’s inquiries concerning jury nullification, did CSA wrongly conclude that this error prejudiced Respondent? |
| 12-04-2020 | No. 18 | Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v. Curtis J. Timm, et al. Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Did CSA err by construing the amendments to Petitioner’s corporate charter as unambiguous without addressing whether Petitioner’s construction is reasonable? 2) Did the trial court err by applying contra proferentem and granting summary judgment despite evidence of the parties’ intent and material fact disputes without giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences? |
| 12-03-2020 | AG No. 92 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Nancy Theresa Lord |
| 12-03-2020 | No. 24 | State of Maryland v. Oliver Miller Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court violated Respondent’s right to confrontation by admitting the results of DNA testing and analysis through a witness who did not author the report of DNA testing and analysis, but who served as its technical reviewer? |
| 12-03-2020 | No. 19 | James Matthew Leidig v. State of Maryland Issues – Constitutional Law – Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it admitted DNA and serological evidence through a witness who did not perform the analysis of the crime scene evidence? |
| November 2020 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 11-06-2020 | No. 9 | Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Department of Finance of Baltimore City Issues – Constitutional Law– 1) Is the operation of billboards protected by the First Amendment, thereby subjecting its taxation to heightened scrutiny? 2) Does the Tax single out a single platform for speech or a small group of speakers, thereby subjecting it to heightened scrutiny? |
| 11-06-2020 | No. 12 | State of Maryland v. Karen Campbell McGagh Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when, citing First Amendment and policy-based concerns, it applied a non-deferential, de novo standard of review to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Respondent’s convictions for perjury and false statement? 2) Did CSA err in finding the evidence insufficient to show willful and knowing falsity, and in finding that one witness’s testimony corroborated by surveillance video was insufficient to satisfy the “two-witness rule” for perjury? 3) Was the evidence legally insufficient to support Respondent’s convictions for perjury and/or false statement because the evidence failed to show that the statements were material? |
| 11-05-2020 | AG No. 6 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Sperling |
| 11-05-2020 | No. 13 | State of Maryland v. Nathan Joseph Johnson Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider and remand because the trial court is entitled to reconfigure the sentencing package to account for the reversal of Respondent’s involuntary manslaughter conviction regardless of the reason for reversal? |
| 11-05-2020 | No. 7 | Bruce Uthus v. Valley Mill Camp, Inc. Issue – Real Property – Can a person claiming the right to possession against a person in actual peaceable possession of real property bring an action in circuit court for common law trespass to recover possession of the property, when the Maryland legislature has committed such actions for possession to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the district court? |
| 10-30-2020 | No. 8 | Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. ProVen Management, Inc. Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err when it held that including an assertion of procedural error in a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision turns such a petition, in substance, into a request for a writ of common law mandamus under Murrell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 376 Md. 170 (2003)? 2) Did CSA err when it held that a petition for judicial review that sought reversal of an administrative decision was, in substance, in the nature of a mandamus action merely because the administrative hearing and administrative decision were alleged to have been performed in a procedurally inadequate manner? |
| 10-30-2020 | Misc. No. 1 | United Bank v. Richard Buckingham, et al. Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Questions: (1) Whether the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act, see Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 15-201 et seq., which generally applies to “conveyances” made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, reaches a change in life insurance beneficiary, particularly in light of Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 16-111(d)? (2) Whether Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 15-102 grants a guardian of property the authority to change the beneficiaries of life insurance policies? |
| 10-29-2020 | AG No. 63 (2018 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson |
| 10-29-2020 | No. 10 | Ashley Hector, et al. v. Bank of New York Mellon Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) As a matter of first impression, can a business Trust be individually liable for compliance with the Baltimore City Housing Code, pursuant to an interpretation of Estates & Trusts Art. §14.5-908? 2) Did CSA err in carving out an exception to Allen v. Dackman, 413 Md. 132 (2010), for a bank that was the Trustee of a mortgage-backed security, and that foreclosed on an old deteriorated property in Baltimore and then purchases said property at auction? 3) May a Bank acting as Trustee which owned a rental property face liability based upon the local Housing Code, or do the Bank's own internal documents and agreements decide the scope of liability? |
| 10-29-2020 | No. 11 | Jose Canales-Yanez v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a Brady violation occurs during a bench trial, is the test for materiality satisfied simply by the judge’s determination that his verdict would not have changed had the evidence not been suppressed unless such a conclusion would be patently unreasonable, without giving due consideration to the effect of the suppression of evidence on the defense case preparation and trial strategy? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the Brady violation did not undermine confidence in the verdict? |
| October 2020 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 10-05-2020 | AG No. 37 (2019T T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Nicholas G. Karambelas |
| 10-05-2020 | No. 4 | Dale K. Byrd v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner’s guilty pleas were valid even though the State did not disclose material impeachment evidence about key police witnesses (including evidence of lying in federal court and falsifying a warrant)? 2) Did the non-disclosure of the evidence violate the State’s constitutional discovery obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 343 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny? 3) Did the non-disclosure of the evidence constitute a misrepresentation by the State rendering the pleas invalid under Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1972), and its progeny? |
| 10-05-2020 | No. 5 | Tyson Farms, Inc., et al. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s determination that the jury should resolve conflicting facts and inferences regarding whether Mr. Garcia was Petitioner’s employee? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that no reasonable jury could find that Mr. Garcia was not Petitioner’s employee, even though Petitioner’s contract was with the owner of the farm, and Petitioner did not hire (or fire) Mr. Garcia; pay him; set his hours or wages; or have a contract with him? |
| 10-02-2020 | AG No. 46 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mary Theresa Keating |
| 10-02-2020 | No. 1 | Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al. v. Selective Way Insurance Company Issue – Civil Procedure – Did CSA err in ruling that prejudgment interest is not recoverable as a matter of right on amounts paid for defense costs where a liability insurer breaches its duty to defend? |
| 10-02-2020 | No. 2 | Devon Jordan Taylor v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the only disputed issue at trial was identity, and the only evidence of identity was the victim’s identification of Petitioner, did CSA misapply the harmless error test in holding that an erroneously-given “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the victim is legally sufficient to sustain the convictions? 2) If preserved, should review of the trial court’s scientific evidence instruction be based on law existing at the time of the trial in 2008 and not based on this Court’s decisions in Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011)? If so, did the trial court act within its discretion when it gave the scientific evidence instruction when the instruction was proper under then existing law, i.e., Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549 (2007)? 3) When Petitioner took exception to the scientific evidence instruction but did not state any particular grounds for the objection, did Petitioner fail to preserve for appellate review the question of the claimed error of the trial court’s instruction? |
| 10-01-2020 | AG No. 19 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ferdinand Uchechukwu Ibebuchi |
| 10-01-2020 | No. 6 | Lolita D. Fowlkes v. Shabbir Ahmed Choudhry Issue – Torts – Did CSA err in its formulation and application of Maryland law regarding what a wrongful death plaintiff must prove in order to recover damages for the loss of household services that would have been provided by Petitioner’s deceased adult child? |
| 10-01-2020 | No. 3 | State of Maryland v. Latoya Bonte Elzey Issue – Criminal Law – Was CSA wrong in holding that a jury may not be instructed to find that the victim abused the defendant and the defendant suffers from Battered Spouse Syndrome before considering expert testimony on the syndrome? |
| September 2020 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 09-15-2020 | Misc. No. 4 | In the Matter of K.E. State Board of Law Examiners denial of an ADA request matter. |
| 09-15-2020 | No. 74 (2019 T.) | State of Maryland v. Kennard Carter Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the Maryland Transit Administration’s (“MTA”) practice of fare inspection on the Light Rail comply with the Fourth Amendment? 2) If fare inspection does not comply with the Fourth Amendment, did the discovery of an open warrant for Respondent’s arrest nevertheless attenuate the violation under Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), where any unconstitutionality of the MTA’s fare inspection practice was not previously established? |
| 09-15-2020 | No. 70 (2019 T.) | Remonia B. Chaplin, et al. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation Issues – Torts – 1) Does the exception to the board certification requirement in the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, Md. Code § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which excuses board-certification at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) for an attesting health care provider who has “taught medicine in the defendant’s specialty or a related field of health care,” require the attesting health care provider to have “taught medicine” to students who are “in the defendant’s specialty?” 2) Does the board certification requirement at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) apply when the defendant is not a natural person? 3) Does a claim for absence of informed consent when made in the same proceeding with a claim for malpractice require compliance with the certificate requirements in the Act, including the board-certification provisions (and its exceptions) at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (2)(B)? |
| 09-14-2020 | No. 64 (2019 T.) | State of Maryland v. Darrayl John Wilson Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Regardless whether a collusive marriage confers spousal testimonial privilege, is evidence that the defendant-spouse arranged to marry in order to suppress the witness-spouse’s testimony under the cloak of privilege sufficient to satisfy the “corrupt means” element of the obstruction of justice and witness tampering statutes? 2) As a matter of first impression in Maryland, is a party to a collusive marriage precluded from invoking the spousal testimonial privilege? 3) If Respondent’s convictions are affirmed, does his conviction and sentence for witness tampering merge into his conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice, where both convictions are predicated upon one act – marrying his longtime girlfriend and the mother of his two children? |
| 09-14-2020 | No. 69 (2019 T.) | Montgomery County, Maryland v. Anthony G. Cochran and Andrew Bowen Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err in holding that, when calculating a claimant’s hearing loss under Md. Code § 9-650(b)(3) of the Labor & Employment Article, the decibels deducted from the total average hearing loss should be calculated by counting the number of years between the date the claimant turned 50 and the date the claimant retired? 2) Did CSA err in reversing a factual finding of the Workers’ Compensation Commission as to whether Respondent Bowen suffered a “disablement” given that 1) the Commission’s factual finding is “presumed to be correct”; 2) the issue of whether the claimant suffered a disablement was not raised at the Commission hearing; and 3) there was no evidence put on by Petitioner before the trial court to disturb the Commission’s finding? |
| 09-14-2020 | No. 75 (2019 T.) | Lawrence Ervin Montague v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – Is artistic expression, in the form of rap lyrics, that does not have a nexus to the alleged crime relevant as substantive evidence of guilt? |
| 09-11-2020 | Misc. No. 15 (2019 T.) | In the Matter of the Application of Antonette Yvonne Jefferson for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
| 09-11-2020 | No. 68 (2019 T.) | Anne Arundel County, Maryland and Rodney Price v . Michael H. Reeves Issues – Torts – 1) As a matter of first impression does Md. Code § 11-110 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article limit the amount of damages recoverable for negligently causing the death of a pet? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence? |
| 09-10-2020 | AG No. 20 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John T. Riely |
| 09-10-2020 | No. 73 (2019 T.) | Eric Wise v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the admission of a statement by a witness with memory loss as a prior inconsistent statement, in conflict with Corbett v. State, 130 Md.App. 408, cert. denied, 359 Md. 31 (2000)? 2) Did CSA err in expanding the circumstances under which hearsay is admissible under Rule 5-802.1(a) to include statements containing a “material” inconsistency with the witness’s testimony? |
| 09-10-2020 | No. 62 (2019 T.) | Saint Luke Institute, Inc. v. Andre Jones Issues – Health General – 1) Does Petitioner have standing to raise the constitutional right of privacy on behalf of a mental health patient? 2) If Petitioner has the requisite standing, must the court first determine whether the constitutional right of privacy of the person whose records are sought has been superseded prior to any release of mental health records or can the court immediately proceed to the question of release without first finding that the right of privacy has been superseded? 3) If the constitutional right of privacy is required to be ruled upon by the court to determine if it has been superseded, then what are the standards to be applied by the court when a private party litigant rather than a state agency is making the request? 4) If the determination is made that records may be released, does the party requesting the release of mental health records have the burden of identifying to the court the nature of the information being sought for release from the mental health records prior to the court undertaking its in camera review? |