|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, February 5, 2009: Bar Admissions AG 6 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David Moore Thomas Attorney for Petitioner: Gail D. Kessler AG 1 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas F. Pawlak Attorney for Petitioner: Gail D. Kessler
No. 75 State of Maryland v. Marvin Williamson ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES SECTION 7-103(b)(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE, WHICH PRECLUDES THE FILING OF A POST-CONVICTION PETITION “MORE THAN 10 YEARS AFTER THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED,” APPLY IN THIS CASE WHERE RESPONDENT WAS SENTENCED IN 1968 AND PETITION WAS FILED IN 2007, ALMOST 40 YEARS AFTER WILLIAMSON’S CONVICTION AND 12 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TEN YEAR LIMITATION SET FORTH IN SECTION 7-103(b)(1)? Attorney for Appellant: Cathleen Brockmeyer No. 93 Steven G. Ochs, etc., et al. v. Gerald Meibo Hayward, et al. ISSUE - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO RAISE A WALZER CHALLENGE TO THE PETITIONERS’ CERTIFICATES OF MERIT BY NOT CHALLENGING SAME IN THE HEALTH CLAIMS ARBITRATION OFFICE AND WAITING UNTIL THE CIRCUIT COURT CASE WAS ELEVEN MONTHS OLD BEFORE FILING MOTIONS TO DISMISS RAISING WALZER? Attorney for Appellant: Dennis O'Brien No. 89 Kelvin Parker a/k/a Calvin Parker v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID TRIAL COURT ERR IN ALLOWING TESTIMONY BY A DETECTIVE THAT HE RECEIVED TIP FROM A REGISTERED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT? Attorney for Appellant: Mark Colvin Friday, February 6, 2009: Misc. 7 In the Matter of the Application of Aaron David Binstock for Admission to the Bar of Maryland Attorney: John M. Quinn No. 90 Board of Education of Worcester County v. Horace Mann Insurance Company ISSUE - EMPLOYMENT - TORTS - WHETHER UNDER SECTIONS 4-104 AND 4-105 OF EDUCATION ARTICLE A COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD IS REQUIRED TO DEFEND A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE IN AN UNDERLYING TORT ACTION EVEN WHERE THE ONLY CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED WAS AN INTENTIONAL TORT? Attorney for Appellant: Thomas V. McCarron No. 86 People’s Insurance Counsel Division v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. ISSUE - INSURANCE - WHETHER THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AUTHORIZED THE PEOPLE’S INSURANCE COUNSEL DIVISION TO FILE A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM A FINAL DECISION OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER? Attorney for Appellant: Joshua N. Aurbach No. 98 Victor Antonio Glascoe v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT FAIL TO ISSUE A VALID DECISION WHERE ONE OF THE THREE JUDGES ASSIGNED TO THE PANEL WHO HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE DIED BEFORE THE OPINION WAS ISSUED? Attorney for Appellant: Marc DeSimone No. 99 Brandon Justin Jackson v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT FAIL TO ISSUE A VALID DECISION WHERE ONE OF THE THREE JUDGES ASSIGNED TO THE PANEL WHO HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE DIED BEFORE THE OPINION WAS ISSUED? Attorney for Appellant: Marc DeSimone Monday, February 9, 2009: AG 70 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Donald Paul McLaughlin Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee AG 54 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas Howard Queen Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 82 State of Maryland v. Jermaine Carroll Camper ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY REMAND THIS CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD FAILED TO ADVISE RESPONDENT OF THE MANDATORY PENALTIES BEFORE FINDING WAIVER OF COUNSEL BY INACTION? Attorney for Appellant: Cathleen Brockmeyer
Tuesday, February 10, 2009: No. 80 Juan Rivera v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ACCEPTING A GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT A FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT IT AND DID THE CSA IN RULING THAT A FACTUAL STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF A GUILTY PLEA NEED NOT CONFORM TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLEADS GUILTY? Attorneys for Appellant: Daniel Ginsburg and Gary E. Bair No. 85 John Grady, et al. v. Darin Donell Brown ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT A JURY QUESTION WAS PRESENTED AS TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH THAT COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PLAINTIFF BELOW WAS THE FAVORED DRIVER ON THE BOULEVARD, THE DEFENDANT WAS THE UNFAVORED MOTORIST, AND ALSO FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT DID DRIVE HIS VEHICLE INTO THE ROADWAY? Attorney for Appellant: Irwin W. Weiss No. 92 Lovell Land, Inc. v. State Highway Administration, et al. ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - IS PETITIONER A CREDITOR THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE REVERTER CLAUSE IN THE SHA/COUNTY DEED WHERE: (1) UNDER THE EXPRESS TERMS OF REVERTER CLAUSE INTERPRETED IN LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTE, SECTION 8-309 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE, KING’S MEADE IS A MEMBER OF A CLASS OF PERSONS THAT CAN BENEFIT FROM THE REVERTER CLAUSE AND (2) THE SHA INCLUDED THE REVERTER CLAUSE IN THE SHA/COUNTY DEED IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO KING’S MEADE’S CLAIM THAT SHA WAS REQUIRED TO CONVEY THE PROPERTY TO KING’S MEADE UNDER SECTION 8-309 BECAUSE THE COUNTY DID NOT HAVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR THE PROPERTY? Attorney for Appellant: Kurt J. Fisher No. 94 Kelly Green, a minor, etc., et al. v. N.B.S., Inc., et al. ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - DOES MARYLAND’S CAP ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES APPLY TO CLAIMS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO MARYLAND’S CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT? Attorney for Appellant: Brian S. Brown
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 February 10, 2009, the Court will recess until March 5, 2009.
BESSIE M. DECKER |