Maryland Courts

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. 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
009
2016 Hanover Investments Volkman 2016-03-25 2016-09-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Corut of Special Appeals, No. 1595, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

016
2016 Eastern Shore Title Ochse 2016-05-20 2016-10-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 999, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

020
2016 Glass Anne Arundel Co. 2016-06-23 2016-10-13
[Oral Argument]
2016-05-25
[Opinion]

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 185, Sept .Term 2015 (Unreported)

025
2016 Frederick Classical Bd. of Education 2016-07-11 2016-11-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 42, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

038
2016 Johnson State 2016-08-19 2016-12-02
[Oral Arguments]
2017-04-26
[Opinion]

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 189, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

034
2016 Copsey Park 2016-08-19

2016-12-05
[Oral Arguments]

This recording is in two parts:
Part 1
Part 2

2016-05-24
[Opinion]

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2170, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

030
2016 Bainbridge St. Elmo White Flint Exp. Realty 2016-08-19 2016-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 376, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

036 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Dyer & Gray   2017-01-05
[Oral Arguments]

  Attorney disciplinary matter.
033
2016 Elvaton Towne Condo. Rose 2016-08-19 2017-01-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1033, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

032
2016 Rohrer Humane Society, Washington Co. 2016-08-19 2017-01-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Circuit Court for Washington County (No. 21-C-15-054127)

047
2016 Edwards State   2017-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

2017-05-24
[Opinion]
DNA Appeal

042
2016 UFCWIU Wal-Mart Stores 2016-09-02 2017-01-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 376, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

055
2016 State Baker 2016-10-12 2017-02-02
[Oral Arguments]
2017-05-22
[Opinion]

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1467, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

078
2016 Parker Hamilton 2016-12-14 2017-02-02
[Oral Arguments]
2017-05-22
[Opinion]

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2765, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

044
2016 Cruz-Quintanilla State 2016-09-02 2017-02-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1505, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

008 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Powers   2017-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
057
2016 Rogers Home Equity USA 2016-10-28 2017-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 164, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

058
2016 Levitas Christian 2016-10-28 2017-02-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2392, Sept. Term, 2013 (Unreported)

062
2016 Deer Automotive Brown 2016-11-09 2017-03-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No, 1266, Sept. Term, 2015 (Pending)

064
2016 Fuentes State 2016-11-09 2017-03-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 483, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

063
2016 Amster Baker 2016-11-06 2017-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
2017-05-22
[Opinion]

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1801, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

065
2016 State Crawley 2016-11-15 2017-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 467, Sept. Term, 2013 (unreported)

068
2016 Reger Washington Co. Bd. of Education 2016-11-22 2017-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1937, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

070
2016 Clarksville Residents Donaldson Properties 2016-12-02 2017-03-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1762, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

071
2016 Select Portfolio Saddlebrook West Utility 2016-12-02 2017-03-06
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1911, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

074
2016 Brown State 2016-12-02 2017-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1094, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

066
2016 Prince George's Co. Chaney Enterprises 2016-11-15 2017-03-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1032, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

073
2016 Chateau Foghorn Hosford 2016-12-02 2017-03-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 852, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

077
2016 Powell DHMH 2016-12-02 2017-03-31
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1596, Sept. Term, 2016 (Pending)

075
2016 Vito Grueff 2016-12-02 2017-03-31
[Oral Arguments]
2017-05-22
[Opinion]

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1878, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

084
2016 State Copes 2017-01-09 2017-04-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in excluding the evidence recovered by the police?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 580, Sept. Term, 2016 (Unreported)

006 AG


013 AG
2016


2016
Attorney Grievance Bellamy   2017-04-03
[Oral Arguments]
2017-04-03
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
081 AG
2015 Attorney Grievance Shuler   2017-04-03
[Oral Arguments]
2017-04-03
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
076
2016 Rochkind Stevenson 2016-12-02 2017-04-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

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)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 418, Sept. Term, 20 15 [Opinion]

059 AG


012 AG
2015


2016
Attorney Grievance Plank   2017-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
2017-04-04
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter
012 AG
2016 Attorney Grievance Kotlarsky   2017-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
2017-04-04
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter


082
2016 Savage State 2017-01-09 2017-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 323, Sept. Term, 2014 (Unreported)

025 Misc.
2016 Thomas State   2017-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?'

080
2016 Smith State 2017-01-09 2017-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

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)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2634, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

081
2016 Ray State 2017-01-09 2017-05-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1469, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

067
2016 Beaman State   2017-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
  DNA appeal.

079
2016 Castruccio Estate of Castruccio 2017-01-09 2017-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1665, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

091
2017 Scott State 2017-02-03 2017-05-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2412, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

089
2016 Moats State 2017-02-03 2017-05-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1219, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

092
2016 Stevenson State 2017-02-03 2017-05-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 76, Sept. Term. 2016 (Pending)

077 AG
2016 Reinstatement of Alston     2017-05-08
[Oral Arguments]
  In the matter of the petition for reinstatement of Tiffany T. Alston

090
2016 Nat'l Waste Mgrs. Forks of the Patuxent 2017-02-03 2017-05-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

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

Court of Special Appeals, No. 361, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

086
2016 Newton State 2017-02-03 2017-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1751, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

088
2016 Porter State 2017-02-03 2017-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1916, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

083
2016 State Rich 2017-01-09 2017-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 601, Sept. Term, 2010 [Opinion]

087 AG
2016 Reinstatement of Feldman     2017-06-01   In the matter of the petition for reinstatement of Larry Jason Feldman.

069
2016 Electrical General LaBonte 2016-12-02 2017-06-01  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 718, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

085
2016 Ceccone Carroll Home Services 2017-02-03 2017-06-01  

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?

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, No. C-02-CV-16-001190

087
2016 Sage Title Group Roman 2017-02-03 2017-06-01  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 40, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]

093
2016 McGeehan McGeehan 2017-02-17 2017-06-02  

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)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2445, Sept. Term, 2015 (Unreported)

096
2016 Schneider Elec. Bldgs. Western Surety 2017-03-03 2017-06-02  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 20, Sept. Term, 2015 [Opinion]

097
2016 Burak Burak 2017-03-03 2017-06-02  

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?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2744, Sept. Term, 2014 [Opinion]