|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, March 5, 2009: Bar Admissions AG 11 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Renard Dexter Johnson & Will Purcell Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
ISSUE - LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT - MARYLAND WAGE ACT - WHETHER A TRIAL JUDGE MAY AWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST AN EMPLOYER FOR WILLFULLY FAILING TO PAY WAGES WITHOUT A BONA FIDE DISPUTE UNDER MARYLAND LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECTION 3-507.1(b) WHERE A JURY HAS RENDERED A VERDICT WITH A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYER DID NOT FAIL TO PAY WAGES WITHOUT A BONA FIDE DISPUTE? Attorney for Appellant: John D. Quinn No. 96 Master Financial, Inc., et al. v. Ralph S. Crowder, et al. ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - MAY BORROWERS DELAY BRINGING THEIR STATUTORY SMLL CLAIMS, WHICH ARE BASED ENTIRELY ON STATUTORY VIOLATIONS COMMITTED AND KNOWN AT LOAN CLOSINGS, BEYOND THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD ON THE THEORY THAT THEIR CLAIMS FOR EXCESSIVE CLOSING COSTS ACCRUE ANEW EACH TIME THAT THE BORROWERS MAKE A LOAN PAYMENT THAT INCLUDES FEES OR INTEREST THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE’S CIVIL PENALTIES SECTION? Attorneys for Appellant: Gerard J. Gaeng and Ward B. Coe, III No. 103 Antonio Gonozalez Belote v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT AN ILLEGAL FRISK COULD BE JUSTIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDING THAT IT WAS AN ARREST? Attorney for Appellant: George E. Burns No. 104 Renaissance Centro Columbia LLC v. Joel Broida ISSUES - ZONING - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT BOTH THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION AND THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION SHIFTS TO THE PARTY CHALLENGING THE PRESUMPTIVE STANDING OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IN ZONING CASES? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT SECTION 2.210(a)(4)(ii) OF THE HOWARD COUNTY CODE DOES NOT GOVERN APPEALS OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS TO THE HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS? Attorney for Appellant: Richard B. Talkin No. 105 State Security Check Cashing, Inc. v. American General Financial Services (DE) a/k/a American General Financial Services, Inc. ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - (1) WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED BY COMMERCIAL LAW ARTICLE, SECTION 3-404(d) OF A PERSON WHO IN GOOD FAITH TAKES AND CASHES A CHECK ISSUED TO AN IMPOSTER? (2) DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO WAIT UNTIL A CHECK ISSUED TO AND NEGOTIATED BY AN IMPOSTER HAD CLEARED BEFORE GIVING THE IMPOSTER THE PROCEEDS OF THE CHECK? Attorney for Appellant: Bruce E. Kauffman No. 109 Cecil Laroy Robinson v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE VIOLATED THE APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL WHEN HE ORDERED MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT’S FAMILY AND OTHER SPECTATORS TO LEAVE THE COURTROOM? Attorney for Appellant: Stacy W. McCormack No. 112 Pamela Blackwell et al. v. Wyeth d/b/a Wyeth, Inc., et al. ISSUES - COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - EXPERT TESTIMONY - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY APPLY THE REED-FRYE GENERAL ACCEPTANCE STANDARD TO PETITIONER’S EXPERTS’ CONCLUSIONS, RATHER THAN THE BASIS UPON WHICH THEY REACHED THEIR CAUSATION OPINIONS, AND IMPERMISSIBLY CONDUCT A TRIAL ON THE MERITS BY USING A HEIGHTENED SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY STANDARD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THEIR EXPERT TESTIMONY? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT APPLY AN ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARD AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PETITIONER’S EXPERTS’ TESTIMONY IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MD. RULE 5-702? Attorney for Appellant: Thomas F. Yost, Jr. No. 114 In Re: Najasha B. ISSUE - COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - CINA - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING AN ADJUDICATORY HEARING AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE, COURT RULES AND THE PARENTS PATRIAE DOCTRINE? Attorney for Appellant: Meredith Esders No. 91 Garry Dennis Crosby, Jr. v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - IS THE FOLLOWING OF A CAR BY THE POLICE AND THE SUBSEQUENT SURROUNDING OF THAT CAR BY AT LEAST THREE POLICE CARS AFTER THE VEHICLE STOPPED, A MERE ACCOSTING, OR A STOP REQUIRING REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT A CRIME HAD OCCURRED OR WAS ABOUT TO OCCUR BY THE PERSON STOPPED? Attorney for Appellant: Nancy Forster No. 108 Michael Tackney et al. v.
United States Naval Academy Alumni Association, Inc. ISSUES - CORPORATE LAW - (1) WHETHER NAACP V. GOLDING, 342 Md. 663 (1996) REQUIRES A COURT TO INTERVENE WHEN THE BOARD OF THE ASSOCIATION, A MARYLAND NON-STOCK CORPORATION, CLEARLY VIOLATES THE ASSOCIATION’S UNAMBIGUOUS BYLAWS SO AS TO DEPRIVE THE ASSOCIATION’S MEMBERSHIP OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ELIGIBLE BOARD LEADERSHIP? (2) WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF AN INCORPORATED MARYLAND NON-STOCK MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION IN VIOLATING THE BYLAWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-ELECTING AND ENTRENCHING THE INELIGIBLE BOARD LEADERSHIP IS SUFFICIENTLY ARBITRARY TO DENY THE BOARD’S ACTIONS THE DEFERENCE ACCORDED UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE AND ITS ANALOG THE RULE ON NON-INTERVENTION SET FORTH IN NAACP V. GOLDING? Attorney for Appellant: K. Donald Proctor ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS APPELLANT DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PRESERVE AN ATTITUDE OF IMPARTIALITY IN HIS QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES? Attorney for Appellant: Claudia A. Cortese ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATE APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO A FAIR TRIAL WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE ACTED AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR AND CREATED A HOSTILE COURTROOM ENVIRONMENT FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL IN FRONT OF THE JURY, ALL OF WHICH SUGGESTED EXTREME BIAS AGAINST THE DEFENSE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATE APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSER WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE PREVENTED DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM CHALLENGING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ONLY POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY AGAINST APPELLANT? Attorney for Appellant: Renee M. Hutchins No. 101 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Jerry Dale Sanner ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - TRANSPORTATION - DOES A POLICE OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION THAT A STRONG ODOR OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WAS PRESENT ON THE BREATH AND PERSON OF A DRIVER INVOLVED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH CONSTITUTE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO REQUEST AN ALCOHOL CONTENT TEST UNDER TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE SECTION 16-205.1(b)(2)? Attorney for Appellant: Leight D. Collins No. 97 Joseph Ernest Simms v. State of Maryland Attorney for Appellant: Geraldine Sweeney No. 111 Colonel A. Omayaka v. Josephine O. Omayaka ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN LAW AND FACT THAT APPELLEE DID NOT DISSIPATE MARITAL ASSETS WHEN THE MARRIAGE WAS UNDERGOING AN IRRECONCILABLE BREAKDOWN? Attorney for Appellant: Joseph M. Kim No. 102 Miguel Gonzales v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT DENY PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE BY INSISTING, DESPITE PETITIONER’S PROTEST, THAT ANOTHER ATTORNEY WHO WAS FROM THE SAME LAW FIRM AND WAS PRESENT AT TRIAL TABLE WAS HIS ATTORNEY? (2) - DID PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHERE THE TRIAL COURT OFFERED HIM THE CHOICE OF PROCEEDING WITH AN ATTORNEY WHOM HE DID NOT BELIEVE HE HAD HIRED TO REPRESENT HIM OR PROCEEDING WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY? Attorney for Appellant: Piedad Gomez 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 March 10, 2009, the Court will recess until April 2, 2009.
BESSIE M. DECKER
|