|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND SCHEDULE Thursday, January 3, 2008: Bar Admissions No. 57 Sandra S. Elderkin et al. v. Douglas G. Carroll, III ISSUE - CONTRACTS - DOES MARYLAND LAW REQUIRE TIMELY EXERCISE OF AN OPTION IN STRICT ACCORD WITH ITS TERMS? Attorney for Appellant: John H. Zink, III AG 11 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mikre-Michael Ayele Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk No. 61 Luat D. Duckett v. Raenora Riley ISSUE - CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAY A PARTY BE REFUSED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE PARTY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES FOR A PROPER JURY TRIAL DEMAND? Attorney for Appellant: Robert W. Goodson No. 66 Kazeem Adeshina Ishola v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES THE OFFENSE OF KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ASSUMING ANOTHER'S IDENTITY ENCOMPASS A PROSECUTION FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF A FICTITIOUS IDENTITY? Attorney for Appellant: Julia C. Schiller No. 56 Afaf Nassar Khalifa et al. v. Michael Shannon ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHENIT DENIED THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE OF THE COMPLAINT BY RECOGNIZING THE TORT OF INTERFERENCE WITH CUSTODY AND VISITATION RIGHTS OF CHILDREN? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTY TWO OF THE COMPLAINT BY RECOGNIZING TORT OF CIVIL CONSPIRACY? (3) DID TRIAL COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WHERE THE PUNATIVE DAMAGES AWARDED BY THE JURY WERE GROSSLY EXCESSIVE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD OF DEFENDANT'S ABILITY TO PAY? Attorney for Appellant: Wm. C. Brennan, Jr. Friday, January 4, 2008: No. 63 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lianne Marie Delawter ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES REFERRAL TO THE MEDICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF A SUSPENDED MOTORIST IMPROPER BECAUSE THE MOTORIST HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THE POSSIBLE REFERRAL? Attorney for Appellant: Leight D. Collins No. 59 Kent Sand and Gravel, LLC v. Jacksonville Machine and Repair, Inc. ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - IS A DREDGE, OR ANY OTHER EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO BE USED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND NOT AFFIXED TO REAL PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO A MECHANIC'S LIEN? Attorney for Appellant: Dwight Thomey No. 71 David Robinson v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - iS THE TERM "FAMILY MEMBER" CONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AS USED IN THE CHILD ABUSE STATUTE? Attorney for Appellant: Michael Lytle No. 62 Pulte Home Corporation v. Parex, Inc. et al. ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - DID THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO AN INDEMNITY CLAIM ASSIGNED TO A HOME BUILDER AS PART OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? Attorneys for Appellant: Michael J. McManus and Brian A. Coleman Monday, January 7, 2008: AG 35 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Karin Marie Kendrick Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk No. 67 Jeffrey J. Opert v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ISSUE - CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT DID LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT A VICTIM OF A CRIME AS DEFINED IN MD. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. SEC. 11-801? Attorney for Appellant: Michael S. Greene
ISSUE - ATTORNEYS FEES - WAS A PARTY ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER THE "CONTRACT EXCEPTION" TO THE AMERICAN RULE REGARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES? Attorney for Appellant: Erik H. Nyce
Tuesday, January 8, 2008: AG 43 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jonathan H. Shoup Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 58 Diamond Point Plaza Limited Partnership v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - WHAT EVIDENTIARY STANDARD APPLIES FOR OBTAINING A HEARING ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE RATIFICATION OF A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SALE? Attorney for Appellant: C. Wm. Clark No. 65 Carl Eugene Jones, Jr. v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - MAY A DEFENDANT, BECAUSE OF THE GROWING COMPLEXITY OF A CASE, CHANGE HIS DECISION TO WAIVE COUNSEL AND REQUEST AN ATTORNEY ON THE DAY OF TRIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Sherrie Glasser No. 79 Joyce A. Griffin v. Howard N. Bierman et al. ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DO ADDITIONAL STEPS NEED TO BE TAKEN TO NOTIFY A HOMEOWNER OF A FORECLOSURE SALE WHEN A CERTIFIED-MAIL NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE SENT TO THE HOMEOWNER IS RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE? Attorney for Appellant: Deepak Gupta On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified. After January 8, 2008, the Court will recess until February 7, 2008.
ALEXANDER L. CUMMINGS
|