|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
I IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, January 7, 2010: Bar Admissions AG 2 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeffrey S. Marcalus Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 52 Ameriquest Mortgage Company v. Paramount Mortgage Services, Inc. ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - MAY A LIENHOLDER CHALLENGE AN EARLIER RECORDED DEED OF TRUST ON THE BASIS OF AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSIDERATION AND DISBURSEMENT IF SUCH CHALLENGE IS NOT FILED UNTIL 18 MONTHS AFTER RECORDATION? No. 50 William Edward Dillard v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - SHOULD PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER BE PRESUMED WHERE, FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE’S PRIMARY LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESS, TWO JURORS PATTED THE WITNESS ON THE BACK AND COMMENDED HIM FOR DOING A “GOOD JOB”? Attorney for Appellant: Brian L. Zavin No. 57 Thomas Boemio v. Cynthia Boemio ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON “ALIMONY GUIDELINES” WHICH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE OR RULE IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF ALIMONY AWARD TO THE APPELLEE? Attorney for Appellant: Forothy R. Fait
No. 54 J. Michael Stouffer, Commissioner of Correction v. Troy Reid ISSUE - MAY THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION ADMINISTER LIFE-SUSTAINING MEDICAL TREATMENT OR NUTRITION TO AN INMATE OVER THE INMATE’S OBJECTION WHERE THE LACK OF TREATMENT MAY CAUSE THE INMATE’S DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY AND THREATEN PRISON, SAFETY, SECURITY AND GOOD ORDER? Attorney for Appellant: Micheal O. Doyle
Friday, January 8, 2010: No. 63 Catherine A. Moreland Johnson v. James Michael Johnson ISSUE - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN COMPELLING THE SURVIVING TRUSTEE OF AN INTER VIVOS TRUST TO PROVIDE THE TRUST AGREEMENT AND AN ACCOUNTING TO A BENEFICIARY WHOSE INTEREST IS CONTINGENT AND SUBJECT TO DIVESTMENT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CLEAR TERMS OF THE TRUST? Attorney for Appellant: F. Robert Troll No. 56 Troy Briggs v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - WHERE MARYLAND STATUTES AND RULES DEFINE “CHARGING DOCUMENT” TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF CHARGES, DID THE CIRCUIT COURT PROPERLY DETERMINE THAT A STATEMENT OF CHARGES IS A “CHARGING DOCUMENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF FORMER ARTICLE 27, SECTION 286(d)? Attorney for Appellant: Allison Pierce Brasseaux No. 62 Timothy A. Frey, et al. v. Comptroller of the Treasury ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT (1) ALTHOUGH THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX WAS DISCRIMINATORY ON ITS FACE, IT WAS NONETHELESS A VALID COMPENSATORY TAX UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; (2) THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; (3) THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES & IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; AND (4) THE SPECIAL NON-RESIDENT TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION AND THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? Attorney for Appellant: Harry D. Shapiro No. 64 - Rafael Flanagan v. Department of Human Resources, Baltimore City Office of Child Support Enforcement, ex rel. Baltimore City Department of Social Services ISSUE - CIVIL CONTEMPT - WHERE THERE WAS NO VALID PERSONAL SERVICE, DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDING ON THE SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID PERSONAL SERVICE?
Monday, January 11, 2010: AG 5 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lucille Saundra White Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluck AG 52 (2008 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Godson M. Nnaka Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee No. 58 Elizabeth M. Carven v. State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland ISSUE - STATUTORY - DID TRIAL COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23-407 WERE APPLICABLE TO MR. CARVEN’S APPOINTMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND WOULD BAR HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE JUDGES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM? Attorney for Appellant: Edward J. Lilly No. 61 Kelroy Williamson v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS IT ERROR TO DENY MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S STATUTORY AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS? Attorney for Appellant: Bradford C. Peabody No. 59 Goldfield, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company ISSUE - INSURANCE - WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INSURER CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF IN SHOWING ALLEGATIONS IN THREE COMPLAINTS FILED IN THE UNDERLYING CASE FALL WITHIN THE “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES” EXCLUSION OF THE INSURER’S COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY? Attorneys for Appellant: Mark M. Kodama and Phillip J. Walsh
Tuesday, January 12, 2010: AG 9 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Cotie W. Jones Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee No. 66 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, et al. v. Mary Linklater ISSUES- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) WHETHER MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION IS LIMITED TO MATTERS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A COURT TO DECIDE AN ISSUE OF RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE OR DOGMA, OR WHETHER IT APPLIES MORE BROADLY TO MATTERS OF CHURCH GOVERNANCE? (2) WHETHER CONTINUING VIOLATION PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO CLAIMS UNDER ART. 49B, SECTION 42 AND, IF SO, WHETHER MERELY ALLEGING A DISCRETE AND SEPARATE ACT OF RETALIATION CAN SAVE OTHERWISE DIFFERENT, UNTIMELY SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS? (3) WHETHER INDIVIDUALS CAN BE PERSONALLY LIABLE AS AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE MONTGOMERY CO. CODE? (4) WHETHER MD. CODE ANN. ART. 49B SECTION 42 VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION BY ALLOWING MONTGOMERY CO. TO CREATE CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS IN THAT COUNTY THAT DO NOT EXIST IN MARYLAND’S OTHER JURISDICTIONS? Attorney for Appellant: John L. Cooley No. 60 Joel Falik, et al. v. James Hornage, et al. ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EXPERT WITNESS - DID TRIAL COURT ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL RECORDS OF AN EXPERT WITNESS? No. 90 Joel Falik, et al. v. Clint Holthus, et ux. ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EXPERT WITNESS - DID TRIAL COURT ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL RECORDS OF AN EXPERT WITNESS? Attorney for Appellant: Daniel L. Shea
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 12, 2010, the Court will recess until
BESSIE M. DECKER
|