|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, April 2, 2009: Bar Admissions
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 117 Grasslands Plantation, Inc. v. Frizz-King Enterprises, LLC ISSUES - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ZONING - (1) WHAT STATUTORY ENACTMENT MUST BE MADE BY A LOCAL JURISDICTION IF IT INTENDS FOR ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE ELEVATED TO A STATUS OF LEGAL ENFORCEABILITY AND “THE LEVEL OF REGULATORY DEVICE”? (2) DOES THE ENACTMENT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT BY A LEGAL LEGISLATIVE BODY REQUIRE THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SUCH FINDINGS? (3) IS THERE A SHIFT OF BURDEN OF PROOF FROM APPLICANT/DEVELOPER OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW TO THE PROTESTANT(S) TO IT WHEN THE MATTER IS HEARD DE NOVO BY A LOCAL BOARD OF APPEALS FOLLOWING PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION BY THE LOCAL PLANNING COMMISSION? Attorney for Appellant: Philip W. Hoon
ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DO MARYLAND’S PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, INCLUDING THE BALTIMORE CITY ADULT FELONY DRUG TREATMENT COURT, LACK FUNDAMENTAL JURISDICTION? (2) DOES IMPOSITION OF A 35 DAY JAIL SENTENCE FOR VIOLATING A DRUG COURT RULE FOLLOWED BY THE SAME ACT AFTER THE SANCTION OF 35 DAYS HAS BEEN SERVED, VIOLATE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULES AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE? Attorney for Appellant: Claudia Cortese No. 113 Thanner Enterprises, LLC v. Baltimore County, Maryland ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) WHETHER THE BOARD OF LIQUOR LICENSE COMMISSIONERS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY PROHIBITING THE APPELLANT FROM HAVING OUTSIDE MUSIC AT THE LICENSED PREMISES? (2) WHETHER THE BOARD OF LIQUOR LICENSE COMMISSIONERS’ DECISION WAS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE? Attorney for Appellant: David F. Mister No. 115 C. Phillip Johnson Full Gospel Ministries, Inc. v. Investors Financial Services, LLC ISSUE - CONTRACT LAW - IS A CONTRACT UNDER SEAL, WHICH RECITES THE CONSIDERATION UPON WHICH IT IS TO BE SUPPORTED VALID, EVEN THOUGH THE CONSIDERATION IS NOT GIVEN?
Friday, April 3, 2009: No Cases Scheduled Monday, April 6, 2009: AG 7 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Cornelius Ruddy, Jr. Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein No. 134 Beulah Addison v. Lochearn Nursing Home, LLC d/b/a Future Care-Lochearn ISSUE - TORT LAW - CONTRACT - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS ARISING FROM A PREDATORY REAL ESTATE SCAM AND SABOTAGED MEDICAID APPLICATION? Attorney for Appellant: F. Paul Bland No. 121 Christopher John Schreyer v. William Chaplain and Denise Webb-Cobb ISSUES - COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - TRANSPORTATION - (1) WHETHER PETITIONER’S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES “PURSUING A VIOLATOR OR A SUSPECTED VIOLATOR OF THE LAW” THEREBY, QUALIFYING AS AN “EMERGENCY SERVICE”? (2) WHETHER PETITIONER’S STATUTORY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY RENDERS HIM IMMUNE FROM THE RESPONDENTS’ SUIT? Attorney for Appellant: Steven J. Potter
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS IR ERROR TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A LETTER SENT FROM PRISON BY PETITIONER TO HIS FATHER? Attorney for Petitioner: Bradford C. Peabody No. 123 Stephen H. Rogers v. Eastport Yachting Center, LLC, et al. ISSUES - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - (1) WHETHER THE PORT WARDENS’ DECISION IS VOID AD INITIO DUE TO FAILURE TO GIVE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE HEARING? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FAILING TO STRIKE THE PORT WARDEN’S VOID DECISION? Attorney for Appellant: C. Edward Hartman, III
Tuesday, April 7, 2009: No. 129 CSR, Limited v. Andrea Taylor, et al. ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD SUFFICIENT CONTACTS IN THE STATE TO SUPPORT THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONER WOULD NOT OFFEND TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE? Attorney for Appellant: F. Ford Loker
ISSUES - ZONING - (1) WHEN THE LOWER COURT AFFIRMED THAT THE ARRANGED, INTENDED, DESIGNED AND ACTUAL USE OF THE BUILDING WAS AND IS 26 “DWELLING UNITS” FOR OCCUPANCY BY 26 “FAMILIES” DID THE COURT MISCONSTRUE THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF “DWELLING UNIT” AND “FAMILY”? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT IMPERMISSIBLY AFFIRM THE BOARD OF MUNICIPAL AND ZONING APPEAL ON A GROUND NOT RELIED UPON BY THAT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND ON WHICH THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE REGARDING THE QUESTION OF AN ALLEY OF LONG COMMON USE? Attorney for Appellant: J. Carroll Holzer
ISSUES - ZONING - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT IN AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE PARTY WHO PROVES AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT VIOLATION DOES NOT “PREVAIL” WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10-510(d)(5)(i) SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION TO RECEIVE AN AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT WHILE A CITY COUNCIL BILL WAS ADVANCED OUT OF COMMITTEE AS A RESULT OF PRIVATE DELIBERATIONS THAT VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE CITY COUNCIL’S SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC PASSAGE OF THE BILL IS A NON-VOIDABLE FINAL ACTION? Attorney for Appellant: J. Carroll Holzer
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 April 7, 2009, the Court will recess until April 30, 2009.
BESSIE M. DECKER
|