|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Wednesday, September 2, 2009: Bar Admissions AG 67 (2007 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Brian Grayson West Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 115 (2008 Term) 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? Attorney for Appellant: Eric H. Kirchman No. 1 Richard C. Smith v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTER A GUILTY VERDICT ON MISDEMEANOR THEFT WHERE THE STATE DID NOT PURSUE SUCH A CONVICTION AT TRIAL? (2) IS THE MISDEMEANOR THEFT CONVICTION ORDERED BY THE LOWER COURT IMPERMISSIBLY INCONSISTENT WITH TRIAL COURT’S ACQUITTAL ON THE FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT CHARGE? Attorney for Appellant: Kellie M. Black
ISSUES - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DECIDING THE BEQUESTS TO PETITIONERS WERE CONDITIONED ON DECEDENT BEING MARRIED TO HIS EX-WIFE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH DESPITE THE FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH CONDITION SET FORTH IN THE WILL? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DECIDING THE BEQUESTS TO PETITIONERS WERE CLASS GIFTS NOT INDIVIDUAL GIFTS DESPITE THE FACT THE BENEFICIARIES WERE INDIVIDUALLY NAMED IN THE WILL? Attorney for Appellant: Stephen S. Winegrad Thursday, September 3, 2009: AG 20 (2008 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mina Bahgat Attorney for Petitioner: Gail D. Kessler No. 5 State of Maryland v. Kevin George Digennaro ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - IS THE TERM “OPERATING” CONTAINED IN SECTION 2-209 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE, DIFFERENT FROM THE TERMS “DRIVING” AND “CONTROLLING” AND, IF SO, DOES THE TERM “OPERATING” ENCOMPASS THE FAILURE OF A DRIVER OF A VEHICLE TO PERFORM DUTIES THAT THE DRIVER IS LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PERFORM AS A RESULT OF HIS DRIVING THE VEHICLE? Attorney for Petitioner: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer ISSUES - MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE - VENUE - MAY A DEFENDANT’S CONTACTS WITH A MD COUNTY AT THE TIME OF HIS ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE BE CONSIDERED IN TRIAL COURT’S VENUE ANALYSIS, PURSUANT TO MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. SECTION 6-201(a)? (2) ARE A DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ACTIVE MEDICAL PRIVILEGES AND ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS AT VARIOUS HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL SCHOOLS LOCATED WITHIN A MD COUNTY SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH THAT JURISDICTION TO SUBJECT THE DEFENDANT TO VENUE IN THAT COUNTY, PURSUANT TO MD. CODE ANN. CTS. & JUD. PROC. SECTION 6-201(a)? (3) DOES A PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL INJURY OCCUR IN THE COUNTY WHERE A PLAINTIFF SUFFERS HARM RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE DEFENDANT FOR THE IMPOSITION OF VENUE IN THAT COUNTY, PURSUANT TO MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. SECTION 6-202(8)? Attorney for Appellant: Matthew P. Maloney ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDE THAT THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS VOIR DIRE PROCEDURE? Attorney for Appellant: Brian M. Saccenti AG 21 (2008 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David Michael Robaton Attorney for Petitioner: Fletcher P. Thompson AG 27 (2008 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Stephen Rand Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein No. 7 Judith and Albert Schuele v.
Case Handyman and Remodeling Services, LLC and Case ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ADOPTING FEDERAL LAW AS CONTROLLING ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL COULD BE INVOKED BY A NON-PARTY TO A CONTRACT IN ORDER TO ENFORCE AN ARBITRATION PROVISION, RATHER THAN APPLYING STATE LAW TO DETERMINE THE PROVISION’S ENFORCEABILITY? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM AVOIDING CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION WITH A NON-PARTY WHERE THE NON-PARTY DISAVOWS ANY COGNIZABLE CONNECTION TO THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE, AND WHERE THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT MANIFEST ANY INTENT OR AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE THE LEGAL OR FACTUAL ISSUES RELATED TO RESPONDENTS’ OWN WRONGDOING? Attorney for Appellant: Thomas J. Minton No. 9 Office of the Public Defender, et al. v. State of Maryland, et al. ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ORDERING PUBLIC DEFENDER STAFF ATTORNEY/S TO REPRESENT A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE AFTER THE PUBLIC DEFENDER DECLINED TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION IN THE CASE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING PETITIONER IN CONTEMPT? Attorney for Appellant: Peter F. Rose
No. 128 (2008 Term) Lisa Meade v. Shangri-La Partnership and a Business t/a & d/b/a Children’s Manor Montessori School ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) SHOULD MARYLAND COURTS RESTRICTIVELY INTERPRET A COUNTY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PARI MATERIA WITH THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN LIGHT OF SUTTON v. UNITED AIR LINES, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) AND TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. v. WILLIAMS, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) WHERE CONGRESS HAS DECLARED THAT SUTTON AND TOYOTA MOTOR MFG. ARE CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT AND MEANING OF THE ADA AND HAS LEGISLATIVELY OVERRULED THOSE DECISIONS? (2) SHOULD MARYLAND COURTS CONSTRUING REMEDIAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY OR HANDICAP REJECT THE TERMS “SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS” AND “MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY” IN THE DEFINITION OF DISABILITY UNDER THE ADA “NEED TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY TO CREATE A DEMANDING STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING AS DISABLED”? Attorney for Appellant: Laurence Kay No. 8 Nathan Shenker, et al. v. Laureate Education, Inc., et al. ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT ANN. CODE OF MD, CORPORATIONS & ASSOCIATIONS ARTICLE BARS SHAREHOLDERS DIRECT CLAIMS AGAINST DIRECTORS FOR BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND THEY DO NOT OWE DUTIES TO SHAREHOLDERS? Attorneys for Appellant: Charles J. Piven and David Brower No. 2 Evelyn Susan Workman v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS INHERENT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST PETITION WHERE IT WAS NECESSARY TO PROTECT HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, TO COUNSEL AND TO A SPEEDY TRIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Anne K. Olesen No. 10 Robert Bailey v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY HOLD THAT THE OFFICER HAD BOTH REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP AND PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PETITIONER FOR POSSESSION OF CDS? 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 September 10, 2009, the Court will recess until
BESSIE M. DECKER
|