|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, June 4, 2009: Bar Admissions No. 141 State of Maryland v. James Earl Goldsberry, Jr. ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY RULING THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE PATTERN INSTRUCTION ON SECOND DEGREE FELONY MURDER WHEN THE FELONY UNDERLYING THE MURDER IS AN ATTEMPTED ROBBERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S MODIFIED UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION COULD HAVE COERCED THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS? Attorney for Appellant: Daniel J. Jawor No. 143 Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland ISSUE - ZONING - WHERE MRA WOULD BE ENTIRELY PRECLUDED WITHOUT THE GRANT OF “AREA” VARIANCES FROM ESTABLISHING A RUBBLE LANDFILL USE WHICH IS PERMITTED ON ITS PROPERTY BY RIGHT WITHIN THE HARFORD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, DID THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS MISAPPLY THE “PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY” AND/OR “UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP” VARIANCE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE HARFORD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEN THE BOARD REFUSED TO GRANT REQUESTED VARIANCES? Attorneys for Appellant: William D. Hooper and Susan T. Ford No. 144 Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland ISSUE - ZONING - IS HARFORD COUNTY PREEMPTED BY LAW FROM APPLYING NEWLY ENACTED ZONING REGULATION BILL 91-10 TO MRA’S PROPERTY GIVEN THAT BILL 91-10 WAS ENACTED AND PURPORTEDLY APPLIED TO MRA’S PROPERTY AFTER HARFORD COUNTY ZONING AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVALS HAD BEEN GIVEN TO MRA’S RUBBLE LANDFILL APPLICATION DURING PHASE 1 OF THE STATE RUBBLE LANDFILL PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS? Attorneys for Appellant: William D. Hooper and Susan T. Ford No. 35 (2009T) In Re: Faith H. ISSUE - CINA - DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR BY ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT TO PRESENT ITS CASE-IN-CHIEF THROUGH WRITTEN REPORTS AND WITHOUT ANY IN PERSON TESTIMONY WHERE THE NATURAL PARENT OBJECTED? Attorneys for Appellant: Tamara D. Sanders and Michael R. Braudes ISSUE - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - WHETHER MARYLAND COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A FOREIGN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE SUED IN MARYLAND WHERE THE FOREIGN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED IN MARYLAND? Attorney for Appellant: Robert E. Wilson
Friday, June 5, 2009: No. 151 Rahim Hariri, et al. v. Edward G. Dahne, et al. ISSUE - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 2-507(b) TO DISMISS A CASE WITH PREJUDICE? Attorneys for Appellant: Erin Voss and Wayne S. Goddard No. 146 Joseph D. Miller v. Amanda Lee Mathias ISSUES - FAMILY LAW - DO THE PROVISIONS OF MD. FAMILY LAW CODE ANN., SECTION 9.5-207 REGARDING “INCONVENIENT FORUM” APPLY WHERE (1) THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A MARYLAND CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION, (2) IT IS CONCEDED THAT MARYLAND HAS “CONTINUING, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” OVER THAT DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO MD. FAMILY LAW CODE ANN., SECTION 9.5-202, AND (3) NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO “CONTINUING, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” HAVE BEEN MET? Attorney for Appellant: Jonathan S. Shurberg No. 145 John Wesley Ray v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING “EXTRAORDINARY CAUSE” TO REFUSE TO DISMISS AN INCOMPETENT DEFENDANT’S CHARGES WITHOUT ANY “EXTRAORDINARY” PREDICATE? No. 153 Questar Builders, Inc. v. C.B. Flooring, LLC ISSUES - CONTRACT - (1) WHETHER A “TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE” CLAUSE CONTAINED A A CONTRACT BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES IS ENFORCEABLE UNDER MARYLAND LAW? (2) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE PARTIES’ “TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE” CLAUSE WAS INAPPLICABLE AND DID NOT ALLOW APPELLANT TO TERMINATE THE PARTIES’ SUBCONTRACT WITHOUT CAUSE? No. 154 James K. Sillers v.
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
***** ISSUE - EMPLOYMENT - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLEE, WHICH IS A STATE AGENCY, IS NOT SUBJECT TO CIVIL ACTION UNDER MD. CODE, ART. 49B, SECTION 42? Attorneys for Appellant: Timothy Maloney and Koushik Battacharya
Misc. 8 Mamsi Life & Health Insurance Company, et al. v. Kuei-I Wu, et al. Attorney for Appellant: Jeffrey A. Lutsky ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHEN THE STATE IS FORCED TO DISMISS A DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT AND SEEK A NEW INDICTMENT, DOES THE HICKS PERIOD BEGIN AGAIN WHEN THE NEW INDICTMENT IS ISSUED?
ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ZONING - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW BY AFFIRMING THE TALBOT COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS’ DECISION THAT THE STRUCTURE PROPOSED BY THE APPELLEE IS PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS EITHER AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL OR ACCESSORY AGRICULTURE USE OR STRUCTURE PURSUANT TO THE TALBOT COUNTY ZONING CODE?
ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT PERMITTED AN EXPERT WITNESS TO STATE AN OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT POSSESSED PCP WITH AN INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE? No. 152 Jung Chul Park v. Cangen Corporation ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OVER APPELLANT’S INVOCATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?
No. 159 Laurel Racing Association, Inc. v. Video Lottery Facility Location Commission, et al. ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - STATE GOVERNMENT - (1) WHETHER LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 9-1A-36(j)(2) OF THE ACT, “[A]LL INITIAL LICENSE FEES SUBMITTED UNDER THE SUBTITLE SHALL ACRUE TO THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND,” IS AMBIGUOUS? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TAX GEN’L ART. SECTION 13-901(a)(2) ALLOWS FOR THE REFUND OF AN UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER’S INITIAL LICENSE FEE? (3) WHETHER AN ACT THAT REQUIRES THE STATE TO RETAIN AN UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER’S INITIAL LICENSE FEE IN ADDITION TO A SEPARATE APPLICATION FEE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT BID IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? (4) WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY EXPRESS AUTHORITY, GUIDELINES OR STANDARDS AS TO WHETHER THE LOCATION COMMISSION MAY REFUND AN UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER’S LICENSE FEE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER? (5) WHETHER A BIDDER FOR A STATE LICENSE WHO SUBMITS A PROPOSAL BASED ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION EXPRESSLY STATED IN SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE ITS BID AFTER A COURT MODIFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BIDDING PROCESS? (6) DID APPELLANT WAIVE ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE INITIAL LICENSE FEE REQUIREMENT OF THE VLT PROGRAM BY FAILING TO RAISE THOSE OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS AS THE LOCATION COMMISSION’S REPORT FOR PROPOSALS REQUIRED? No. 149 Adelaida Maria Tarray v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - IS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS FOR EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AND CONSPIRACY TO EXPLOIT A VULNERABLE ADULT? No. 142 Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, et al. v. Herschell B. Claggett, Sr. ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - AGRICULTURE - DO THE REQUIREMENTS OF MD. CODE ANN., AGRICULTURE SECTION 2-513(b) AS AMENDED BY 2004 LAWS OF MARYLAND, CHAPTER 498, APPLY TO A FINAL RELEASE FROM LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING FOR THE USE OF THE LANDOWNER, WHICH THE LANDOWNER REQUESTED IN 2005? Attorney for Appellant: Steven M. Sullivan
ISSUES - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - (1) DID THE LEGISLATURE INTEND TO EXCLUDE PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES WHERE 100% OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY INVOLVE TESTIMONY IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS? (2) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE STATUTE TO ADVANCE THE STATED PUBLIC POLICY BY FINDING THAT A PROFESSIONAL WITNESS DEVOTED MORE THAN 20% OF HIS PROFESSIONAL TIME TO ACTIVITIES THAT DIRECTLY INVOLVE TESTIMONY IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS? No. 155 Robert M. Higginbotham, II v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, et al. ISSUE - TORT LAW - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - DOES MARYLAND STATE GOVERNMENT ARTICLE SECTION 12-105(B)(3), WHICH REQUIRES THAT AN ACTION UNDER THE MARYLAND TORT CLAIMS ACT BE FILED WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES, CREATE A UNIFORM THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ALL TORT ACTIONS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE ACT, INCLUDING DEFAMATION CLAIMS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN MARYLAND COURTS & JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARTICLE SECTION 5-105?
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 June 9, 2009, the Court will recess until
BESSIE M. DECKER |