NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are taken up by the Court. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).
Click on the column title to sort by that column.
| Case No. | Year | Petitioner | Respondent | Cert. Granted | Oral Arguments | Opinion Filed | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
024 | 2022 | Fooks | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-08-15 [PC Order] | Constitutional Law – 1) In view of existing Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent interim decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), what is the proper analytical framework to apply to constitutional challenges to Maryland’s firearms laws? 2) Did CSA fail to apply the proper analytical framework to the constitutional challenges in this case? 3) Is Md. Code § 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to this case? Court of Special Appeals, No. 269, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
030 | 2022 | Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, etc., P.A. | Parkway Neuroscience & Spine | 2023-01-20 | 2023-05-04 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-13 [Order] 2023-08-30 [Opinion] | Maryland Rules – Did ACM err in finding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on lost profits? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 658, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
007 | 2023 | Syed | Lee, et al. | 2023-06-28 | 2023-10-05 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a lawfully entered nolle prosequi render moot an appeal alleging procedural violations at a hearing occurring prior to the nolle prosequi? 2) Does a victim’s representative, a non-party to a case, have the right to attend a vacatur hearing in-person or does remote attendance satisfy the right? 3) Was notice to the victim’s representative of the vacatur hearing sufficient where the State complied with all statutory and rules-based notice requirements? 4) Must a victim’s representative seeking reversal show prejudice on appeal? 5) Is a victim’s right to speak incorporated into the Vacatur Statute, Md. Code § 8-301.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article, where no party or entity other than the victim has an interest in challenging the evidence alleged to support vacatur? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1291, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
010 | 2023 | In the Matter of McCloy | 2023-08-11 | 2023-11-03 [Oral Arguments] Please note: These oral arguments were held at Dr. Henry A. Wise, Jr. High School in Upper Marlboro, MD. | 2024-08-20 [Opinion] | Public Safety – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the Maryland State Police’s (“MSP”) denial of petitioner’s application to purchase a regulated firearm? 2) Did ACM err in finding that the relevant Md. statute to be considered for equivalence is the statue in effect at the time of the application, not the statute in effect at the time of the out-of-state conviction? 3) Did ACM err in adopting a “substantial evidence” test that fails to provide clear criteria for determining the equivalence of out-of-state offenses and affords unreasonable deference to the agency’s changing statutory interpretations? 4) Did ACM err in finding that a “reasonable mind” could accept the MSP’s conclusion, given that MSP’s conclusion has abruptly and inexplicably changed absent any changes to the relevant facts or law? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 673, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
008 | 2023 | Mitchell | State | 2023-07-26 | 2023-11-06 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-08-14 [Opinion] | Criminal Law – Should Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146 (2007) – which summarily rejected the request to ask voir dire questions regarding the credibility of children, like the one at issue in this case, that is: whether any prospective juror would be more or less likely to believe a witness merely because the witness is a child – be reconsidered in light of recent case law governing voir dire? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 560, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) |
017 | 2023 | Doctor's Weight Loss Ctrs. | Blackston | 2023-09-22 | 2024-01-08 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-07-31 [Opinion] | Torts – Did ACM utilize the correct standard for determining when a cause of action manifested itself to determine the correct choice of law using the lex loci delicti rule? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 533, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) |
018 | 2023 | African Cemetery Coalition | Housing Opportunities Comm'n | 2023-09-22 | 2021-01-08 [Oral Arguments] | Business Regulations – 1) Did the ACM err in holding that §5-505 of the Business Relations Article of the Md. Code is nothing more than a “quiet title” statute, providing land owners with an optional proceeding that they may choose to institute when selling land containing a burial ground if they wish to convey a “clean” title to the realty? 2) Under Maryland law, does a court of equity need to assess whether (and if so, on what conditions) a property owner can sell land containing a burial ground for non-burial use in view of the 1829 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Beatty v. Kurtz, which (applying Maryland law) charged courts of chancery operating pursuant to their equity powers “to preserve the repose of the ashes of the dead and the religious sensibilities of the living,” as well as subsequent decisions by this Court and other courts? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1488, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] | |
015 | 2023 | State | Thomas | 2023-09-22 | 2024-02-05 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland Rule 4-345(e), which states that a court “may not revise the sentence after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” mean that a court may not revise a sentence under Rule 4-345(e) after the five-year period expires? 2) Where a defendant timely files a motion to modify under Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and repeatedly requests a hearing on the motion, is the trial court required to exercise its discretion within five years, i.e. either deny the motion without a hearing or hold a hearing to determine whether to grant the motion, or does the rule permit the court to let the five years lapse without exercising discretion? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 657, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) | |
019 | 2023 | Rovin | State | 2023-10-23 | 2024-02-06 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-15 [Opinion] | Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err in concluding that the “objectively reasonable” mistake of law test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014), applies to civil constitutional tort claims arising under the Maryland Constitution, including Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 2) Did ACM err in concluding that the “objectively reasonable” mistake of law test articulated in Heien applies to claims arising under Maryland’s common law, such as for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution? 3) Did ACM err in determining that the officers in Petitioner’s case made an objectively reasonable mistake-of-law in arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting her and that, as a result, Petitioner’s claims failed as a matter of law? 4) Did ACM err in determining that the juror intimidation statute in Md. Code Criminal Law Article § 9-305(a) was not unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the due process protections guaranteed by Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 5) Did ACM err in determining that Petitioner’s free speech rights under Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights were not violated? 6) Was the warrant issued for Petitioner’s arrest invalid based on the contents of the warrant affidavit, which show no crime was committed? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 198, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) |
025 | 2023 | Bennett | Gentile | 2023-11-29 | 2024-03-05 [Oral Arguments] Please note: These oral arguments were held at St. Mary’s College of Maryland in St. Mary’s City, MD. | 2024-08-12 [Opinion] | Estates & Trusts – 1) Was petitioner an intended third-party beneficiary of an oral retainer agreement between the Trust Settlor and respondent? 2) Does Noble v. Bruce, 349 Md. 730 (1998), apply to the unique facts of this case? 3) Should Noble be overturned and replaced with the “balancing of factors” test adopted by other state courts? 4) Can the collateral litigation doctrine apply when the collateral claim which is litigated in the case is the source of that claim? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 479, Sept. Term, 2023 (Pending) |
022 | 2023 | Jarvis | State | 2023-11-17 | 2024-04-05 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-12 [Opinion] | Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM err when it held that the trial court’s erroneous refusal to instruct the jury on attempted voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense was harmless error where had the petitioner been convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter rather than first-degree assault his sentence would be shorter? 2) Did the ACM err when it held that the trial court abused its discretion in not instructing the jury on imperfect self-defense? Appellatte Court of Maryland, No. 744, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported) |
020 | 2023 | Turenne | State | 2023-10-23 | 2024-04-05 [Oral Arguments] | 2034-08-16 [Opinion] | Criminal Law – Is the evidence insufficient to sustain the child pornography convictions under Md. Code Criminal Law Article (“CL”) §§ 11-207(a)(1) and -208(b) and child sex abuse convictions under CL § 3-602(b)? (A) What is the appropriate test to determine whether an image constitutes “lascivious exhibition of the genitals” under the child pornography statutes? (B) What role, if any, does evidence of possession of adult pornography play in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 714, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |
016 | 2023 | Adventist HealthCare | Behram | 2023-09-22 | 2024-04-09 [Oral Arguments] | Health Occupations – 1) Did the ACM err by relying on extrinsic evidence in its interpretation of the fully integrated Settlement Agreement without determining whether the Agreement is ambiguous or considering the effect of its integration clause in contravention of settled Maryland law? 2) Did the ACM err by failing to apply standard principles of contract interpretation, by interpreting a Settlement Agreement that expressly releases claims related to three specific events, as unambiguously releasing claims related to other events, and thereby exclude extrinsic evidence that showed that the parties did not intend to release claims related to those other events? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 375, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
030 | 2023 | State | Smith | 2024-01-19 | 2024-05-06 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-13 [Opinion] | Criminal Law – As a matter of first impression, is the “statement against penal interest” evidentiary rule Maryland’s only exception to the rule that a defendant is required to request redaction in order to properly raise a failure-to-redact claim on appeal? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 573, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |
002 JD | 2023 | In the Matter of Hon. Ademiluyi | 2024-05-06 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-15 [Opinion] 2024-05-06 [PC Order] | Judicial disabilities matter. | ||
047 AG | 2021 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Whitted | 2024-06-03 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-01 [Opinion] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | |
014 | 2023 | Cook | State | 2024-06-03 [Oral Arguments] | 2024-08-20 [Opinion] | DNA appeal. | |
032 | 2023 | Mooney | State | 2023-12-16 | 2024-06-03 [Oral Arguments] Please note: Due to a technical glitch, there is a section of the recording with no video. | 2024-08-13 [Opinion] | Criminal Law – Did ACM lower the requirements for authentication of video evidence through the “pictorial testimony theory” where a witness is permitted to authenticate video evidence even when the witness did not see the entirety of the events depicted in it? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1561, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) |
035 | 2023 | Frederick | Balt. City Bd. of Elections | 2024-08-28 | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. No. C-24-CV-24-001361, Circuit Court for Baltimore City | ||
034 | 2023 | Bd. of Elections | Mayor & City Cnc. of Balt. | 2024-08-28 | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. No. C-24-CV-24-001320, Circuit Court for Baltimore City | ||
001 | 2024 | SM Landover LLC SM Parkside LLC | Sanders Lindsey | 2024-02-16 | 2024-09-05 | Real Property – 1) When does a cause of action accrue under the Disclosure Act, Md. Code, Real Prop. Art. (“RP”) § 14-117(a)(3)(i), for failing to include in the initial contract of sale statutory disclosures relating to deferred water and sewer charges? 2) Is a person who is a “home builder” under Md. Code, Business Regulations Art. (“BR”) §4.5-101 relieved of their duty to register as a “home builder” when a different registered home builder is a party to the same contract? 3) Can the unregistered home builder, acting as the seller, of a new home enforce the sales contract against the purchaser where another party, here the builder of the home, who is a registered home builder is also a party to the sale contract? Appellate Court of Maryland, Nos. 1876 & 1880, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) | |
002 | 2024 | Caruso Builder Belle Oak | Sullivan | 2024-02-16 | 2024-09-05 | Real Property - When does a cause of action accrue under the Disclosure Act, Md. Code, Real Prop. Art. § 14-117(a)(3)(i), for failing to include in the initial contract of sale statutory disclosures relating to deferred water and sewer charges? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 153, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
003 | 2024 | Ledford | Jenway Contracting | 2024-03-25 | 2024-09-05 | Labor & Employment – Did ACM err by extending the exclusivity provision of § 9-509 of the Labor & Employment Article (workers’ compensation) to non-dependents? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1755, Sept. Term, 2022, [Opinion] | |
006 | 2024 | Greenmark Properties | Parts, Inc. | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-06 | Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a contract to sell the only asset of a corporation valid if the contract is signed by the sole shareholder still living at the time of the contract and who held in person or by proxy the right to vote the majority of shares in any business decision, but where the sale was not approved by the personal representative of the estates that held title to the majority of the stock? 2) Is a contract to sell the only asset of the corporation void ab initio because the sale was not approved by the corporation’s shareholders in compliance with § 3-105 of the Corporations and Associations Article? 3) Did the ACM correctly determine that petitioner failed to preserve the issue of its standing to challenge the validity of the second contract under §§ 1-403 and 3-105 of the Corporations and Associations Article? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1986, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
050 Misc. | 2023 | Application of O.A.S. for Admission to the Bar | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-09 | In the Matter of the Application of O.A.S. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland | ||
005 | 2024 | Hollins | State | 2024-04-18 | 2024-09-09 | Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM erroneously apply a sufficiency of the evidence standard instead of the “some evidence” standard when it upheld the denial of Petitioner’s request for a non-pattern jury instruction regarding the alleged victim’s propensity for violence? 2) Did the trial court violate the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution when it prohibited Petitioner from cross-examining the alleged victim about visible injuries to rebut the claim raised on direct examination that the victim had outgrown any violence in his past? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2023, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
007 | 2024 | Akers | State | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-09 | Criminal Law – Is evidence of a pregnant woman’s forgoing prenatal care or evidence of a pregnant woman’s conducting Internet searches about terminating the pregnancy relevant as a matter of law to show the woman’s intent to kill the newborn at birth, or if marginally relevant, unfairly prejudicial? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 925, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
002 Misc. | 2024 | Key School | Bunker | 2024-09-10 | Certified Question of Law from the US District Court for the District of Maryland: Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws ch. 5 (S.B. 686), (codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution? | ||
009 | 2024 | Archbishop of Washington | Doe | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-10 | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws Ch. 5 (S.B. 686) (codified at Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 107, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | |
010 | 2024 | Bd. of Education | Doe | 2024-05-28 | 2024-09-10 | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws Ch. 5 (S.B. 686) (codified at Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117)(the “MCVA”), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution? 2) As a subdivision of the State, see Bd. Of Educ. v. Sec’y of Personnel, 317 Md. 34, 44-45 (1989), does the petitioner have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the MCVA? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 107, Sept. Term, 2024 (pending) | |
023 AG | 2023 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Pisner | 2024-10-01 | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
008 | 2024 | In re: M.Z. | 2024-05-28 | 2024-10-01 | Family Law – When a court terminates jurisdiction in a CINA case over the objection of a parent, is the parent “aggrieved” by that court’s unfavorable judgment such that the parent is entitled to appeal? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1412, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
014 | 2024 | Zukowski | Anne Arundel Cty. | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-01 | Workers’ Compensation – Did the General Assembly intend to offset compensation or benefits to be paid directly to claimants when it adopted Md. Code, Labor & Employment Art. § 9-610? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1121, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
011 | 2024 | Walton | Premier Soccer Club | 2024-05-31 | 2024-10-02 | Torts – Did ACM properly affirm the trial court’s ruling that a violation of Md. Code Health General Article § 14-501 (concussion policy and awareness) could not be the proximate cause of a concussion injury as a matter of law notwithstanding that the injured person was within the class of persons – youth athletes – that the statute was intended to protect and the injury was the type of injury the statue was designed to prevent? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1691, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
004 | 2024 | State | Scarboro | 2024-03-25 | 2024-10-02 | Constitutional Law – When an appellant claims a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to a public trial based on the trial court’s ostensible denial of courtroom access, does the burden lie with appellant to establish preliminarily that the courtroom closure is significant enough (i.e. not “de minimis”) that it implicates the constitutional right and requires analysis under the four-part test articulated in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1646, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
042 AG | 2023 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Yeatman | 2024-10-07 | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
015 | 2024 | In re: Estate of Schappell | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-07 | Estates & Trusts – Did ACM err by rejecting Maryland’s longstanding requirement of an agreement to adopt as an element of equitable adoption, instead replacing it with a case-by-case examination of “fairness” factors? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2048, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
016 | 2024 | In the Matter of Isely | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-08 | Family Law – Does the reach of Federal preemption extend such that a former spouse is without rights to enforce a contract related to already distributed retirement proceeds from a federal Thrift Savings Plan; or does Maryland follow the reasoning and interpretation set forth in Andochick v. Byrd, 709 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2013), allowing a former spouse to enforce a contract right regarding already distributed retirement proceeds to effectuate the intention of the parties? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 490, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
017 | 2024 | Petition of Featherfall Restoration | 2024-06-17 | 2024-10-08 | Insurance Law – 1) Does the standard insurance policy clause prohibiting assignment of “this policy” absent insurer consent prohibit the insured from assigning a post-loss claim benefit under the policy without its consent? 2) Did the lower courts err in affording deference to and affirming the ruling of law by the Maryland Insurance Administration (“MIA”) that anti-assignment clauses in property insurance policies preclude post-loss assignments of claims, instead of following this Court’s precedents upholding post-loss claim assignments in the face of anti-assignment clauses? 3) Did the lower courts err in affirming the MIA’s decision that Petitioner, as an assignee of insurance benefits from the insurer, was not a “claimant” or “aggrieved” with standing to challenge the insurer’s unfair claims settlement practices with respect to the claim assigned? 4) Should the trial court have issued a declaratory judgment that the assignment of claim benefits at issue did not violate the contractual provision that “assignment of this policy will not be valid unless we give our written consent” instead of deferring to the agency’s interpretation of Maryland contract law? (Note: The SCM granted a writ of cert only as to Petitioner’s questions 2, 4, 5, and 6.) Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1313, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
12 | 2024 | Mayor & City Cncl. Of Balt. | Wallace | 2024-05-31 | 2024-11-08 | Natural Resources – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, Md. Code, Natural Resources § 5-1101, et seq., (“MRUS”) does not apply to paths in public parks, even where a local government has made the path available for recreational use? 2) Did ACM err when it held that Haley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269 (1956), applies to any path that may serve as a “public connector” between parts of the City, so that any such path in a public park is not subject to MRUS protections? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1644, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
13 | 2024 | Nguyen | State | 2024-06-17 | 2024-11-08 | Criminal Law – Petition: 1) Does Maryland common law impose on police officers a general “duty to protect,” a breach of which is enforceable in a criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment or other crimes of omission, and if so, is the duty triggered when one suspect assaults another suspect in an officer’s presence? 2) If Petitioner had a “duty to protect”, was the testimony of other officers that they would have separated or stood between the two suspects legally sufficient to prove that Petitioner, by taking neither action, grossly departed from the standard of conduct that a reasonable, similarly situated police officer would have observed? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1495, Sept. Term, 2022 | |
19 | 2024 | Zimmerman | State | 2024-07-29 | 2024-11-08 | Criminal Procedure – Whether further appellate review lies in either the Supreme Court of Maryland or the Appellate Court of Maryland from a circuit court’s order revoking probation when the circuit court’s order was entered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the District Court of Maryland.
| |
20 | 2024 | Saunders | Gilman | 2024-08-12 | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did ACM err when it concluded that no exception to the final judgment rule applies and that it lacked appellate jurisdiction? 2) Does § 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings article permit an immediate appeal from an order finding adverse possession of real property before a final judgment has been entered? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 463, Sept. Term, 2022 (dismissed) | ||
3 Misc. | 2024 | Govt. Employees Ins. Co. | MAO-MSO Recovery | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Whether the assignment of the right to seek and receive unpaid reimbursement of payments for expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) (2018) pursuant to a contingency compensation arrangement/agreement is void as against public policy of Maryland, and if so, whether such an arrangement/agreement is unenforceable regardless of any choice of law provision contained in such an agreement. | |||
4 Misc. | 2024 | Govt. Employees Ins. Co. | MAO-MSO Recovery | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Whether the assignment of the right to seek and receive unpaid reimbursement of payments for expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) (2018) pursuant to a contingency compensation arrangement/agreement is void as against public policy of Maryland, and if so, whether such an arrangement/agreement is unenforceable regardless of any choice of law provision contained in such an agreement. | |||
5 Misc. | 2024 | Willey | Brown | Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 1) What legal standard does the term "reasonable grounds" connote in Maryland's Red Flag Law, codified in Title Five of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Annotated Code? 2) Does the statue permit an extreme risk protective order to issue upon a standard less than probable cause? |