|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, January 8, 2009: Bar Admissions AG 12 & Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. 15 (07 T.) Bruce E. Goodman Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk No. 77 Lanay Brown v. The Daniel Realty Company, et al. ISSUE - LEAD PAINT EXPOSURE - IF A WITNESS WAS A PARTY TO A CASE AT THE TIME THE WITNESS’ DEPOSITION WAS OBTAINED, BUT NOT A PARTY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, IS IT PROPER FOR A TRIAL COURT TO PERMIT A PARTY TO READ PORTIONS OF THAT DEPOSITION INTO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 2-419(a)(2) EVEN THOUGH THE WITNESS IS NO LONGER A PARTY TO THE CASE AND NOT UNAVAILABLE? Attorney for Appellant: Brian S. Brown No. 79 Ofir Marwani, et al. v. Catering by Uptown ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - MAY A FOOD SERVICE FACILITY ENFORCE A CONTRACT WITH CONSUMERS EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 21–305(a) OF TITLE 21 OF THE HEALTH-GENERAL ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, AND THE CONTRACT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE REQUISITE DISCLOSURES UNDER H-G SECTION 21-312.1(b)? Attorney for Appellant: Steven B. Gould No. 60 Jermaine Deeric Arrington v. State of Maryland Attorney for Appellant: George E. Burns, Jr.
No. 78 James A. Thompson v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - DNA EVIDENCE - (1) WHETHER POST CONVICTION COURT FAILED TO USE PROPER STANDARD FOR EVALUATING NEWLY DISCOVERED DNA EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO MCCP SECTION 8-201? (2) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED DNA TESTING RESULTS? Attorney for Appellant: George E. Burns, Jr. No. 54 Quinton Richmond et al. v. The District Court of Maryland et al. ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN RULING THAT UNDER THE MD PUBLIC DEFENDER ACT, INDIGENT DEFENDANTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT INITIAL BAIL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DISTRICT COURT COMMISSIONERS? Attorney for Appellant: Michael Schatzow No. 74 Jovon Brian Lancaster v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID PETITIONER WAIVE ANY COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER WHEN HE AGREED TO THE COURSE OF ACTION PROPOSED BY THE LOWER COURT AND MADE NO FURTHER OBJECTION TO THE ORDER AFTER THE HEARING, EITHER PRIOR TO TRIAL OR DURING TRIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Benjamin Miller No. 84 Thomas W. Nodeen, et ux. v. Anja Sigurdsson ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - DOES MARYLAND RULE 2-327(C) PROHIBIT THE CHANGE OF VENUE FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES FROM THE COUNTY WHERE MOTHER RESIDES TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE CASE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TRIED AND CUSTODY GRANTED THE CUSTODIANS, ALBEIT THAT THE CUSTODIANS, MOTHER AND MINOR CHILD NO LONGER RESIDE IN THAT COUNTY? Attorney for Appellant: Richard D. Rosenthal ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT A CONSTRUCTED ROADWAY EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED AS PERMANENT MAY NONETHELESS BE DESTROYED AND RELOCATED PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF A DEED? No. 69 Board of Education of Baltimore County v. Mireille Zimmer-Rubert ISSUE - STATUTORY - WHETHER THE STATE OF MARYLAND, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-105 OF THE EDUCATION ARTICLE AND SECTION 5-518(c) OF THE COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARTICLE ENACTED A VALID WAIVER OF ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY? Attorney for Appellant: Leslie R. Stellman No. 70 In Re: Julianna B. ISSUES - JUVENILE - (1) SHOULD JULIANNA B.’S APPEAL BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE JUVENILE COURT’S CONTINUED COMMITMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ORDER DENYING JULIANNA B.’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF HER DISPOSITION IS NOT A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT, WHEN ISSUING ITS ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE SERVICES FROM IMPLEMENTING THE TREATMENT SERVICE PLAN THE JUVENILE COURT HAD ADOPTED AT THE DISPOSITION HEARING, THE JUVENILE COURT DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR THE JUVENILE CAUSES ACT? Attorney for Appellant: Mary Ann Ince No. 65 Robert Harris v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHERE THE LOWER COURT FOUND A BRADY DISCLOSURE VIOLATION WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO PETITIONER’S TRIAL COUNSEL WHAT POSITION THE PROSECUTOR HAD AGREED TO TAKE AT THE HEARINGS ON THE MOTIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE FILED BY THE TWO KEY WITNESSES AGAINST PETITIONER, DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THOSE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT MATERIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Deborah S. Richardson No. 83 Lynne Parry, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Parry, Deceased, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co. ISSUE - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT TO ALLOW AN INSURANCE COMPANY DEDUCTIONS FROM AN UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED POLICY FOR UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL EXPENSES PAID BY AN EMPLOYER WHEN NO WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM WAS ACTUALLY FILED BY THE EMPLOYEE, ELIMINATES THE CHOICE OF REMEDY RIGHT AFFORDED TO INJURED WORKERS BY STATUTE? Attorney for Appellant: Henry L. BelskyAttorney for Appellee: Thomas J. Dolina
No. 71 Vincent R. Jones v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE PETITIONER’S CONVICTIONS FOR CONSPIRING WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND TO POSSESS HEROIN AND COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE, WHERE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL ESTABLISHED NOTHING MORE THAN THE MERE FACT THAT THE GIRLFRIEND HAD HER NAME ON THE LEASE, LIVED IN THE RESIDENCE WITH THE PETITIONER, AND WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED? Attorney for Appellant: Stacy W. McCormack ISSUE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT DIRECT EVIDENCE OF EXPOSURE TO RESPONDENTS’ ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS ARE REQUIRE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT RESPONDENTS’ PRODUCTS CAUSED PETITIONERS’ ASBESTOS-RELATED INJURIES? Attorney for Appellant: Michael T. Edmonds No. 73 State of Maryland v. Michael Raheem Duran ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT THE CRIME OF INDECENT EXPOSURE IS NOT ONE OF THE CRIMES ENUMERATED BY STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES REGISTRATION AS A SEX OFFENDER AND WAS THE COURT CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT REGISTRATION AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ONE OF THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE? Attorney for Appellant: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - DNA TESTING - (1) MAY THE TRIAL COURT ORDER DNA TESTING IN A POST DIVORCE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE BIOLOGICAL PATERNITY OF A CHILD BORN OR CONCEIVED DURING A MARRIAGE? (2) CAN SUCH DNA TESTING BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY ARGUE FOR THE TERMINATION OF CHILD SUPPORT? 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 13, 2009, the Court will recess until February 5, 2009.
BESSIE M. DECKER
|