|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND SCHEDULE Thursday, November 1, 2007: Bar Admissions AG 63 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Arthur D. Webster Attorney for Petitioner: Glenn M. Grossman
ISSUE - RIPARIAN RIGHTS STATUTE - EASEMENTS (1) WAS THE COURT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN OUSTER COULD CHANGE USE FROM PERMISSIVE TO ADVERSE THUS ALLOWING ADVERSE POSSESSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT TO ARISE 20 YEARS AFTER OUSTER? (2) WHEN EASEMENT TO THE WATER GRANTS EASEMENT HOLDER THE RIGHT TO BUILD HIS PIER IS OWNERSHIP OF PIER VESTED IN EASEMENT HOLDER BY SEVERANCE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS UNDER EASEMENT OR THE LAND OWNER BY MD. CODE, ENVIRONMENT ART. SEC. 16-201? Attorneys for Appellant: Wm. M. Simmons and Tarrant H. Lomax
Misc. No. 3 In the Matter of the Application of Caleb I. Solomon for Admission to the Bar of Maryland Attorney for Appellant: Peter F. Axelrod ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHERE CONSIDERATION, IN POST CONVICTION, OF COMPLAINTS WHICH WERE NOT RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL, HAS RESPONDENT WAIVED HIS CHALLENGE TO THE ADVISORY NATURE OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN IN CASE? Attorney for Appellant: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer No. 21 Chester Harris v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WAS IT ERROR FOR A COURT TO RESTRICT THE DEFENSE CLOSING ARGUMENT BY PREVENTING ARGUMENT ON PROBLEMS WITH EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION? (2) WAS IT ERROR OF A COURT NOT TO ADMINISTER OATH TO THE JURY? Attorney for Appellant: George Burns Friday, November 2, 2007: AG 27 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas F. Kalil Attorney for Petitioner: F. Patrick Kelly No. 35 Robert W. Foley, Jr. et al. v. K. Hovnanian at Kent Island, LLC ISSUE - NATURAL RESOURCES ART. - CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA ACT - WHAT IS LEGAL EFFECT OF AN ORDINANCE ENACTED TO CREATE NEW CRITICAL AREA DISTRICTS WHEN THE ORDINANCE CONTAINS NO INFORMATION ABOUT LOCATION OF NEW DISTRICT BOUNDARIES? Attorney for Appellant: C. Daniel Saunders No. 23 Desmond Ellison Dickey v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WAS THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO GIVE A REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION ON EVALUATING THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO USES OR IS ADDICTED TO DRUGS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
No. 37 Olde Severna Park Improvement Association, Inc. et al. v. Paul Gunby, Jr. et al. ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - RIPARIAN RIGHTS - IN DETERMINING THE INTENT AND MEANING OF A 1931 PLAT WITH REAGRD TO RIPARIAN RIGHTS, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR A COURT TO APPLY LEGAL CONTEXT DEVELOPED BY AN APPELLATE DECISION NEARLY SEVENTY YEARS AFTER 1931? Attorney for Appellant: Robert Douglas Monday, November 5, 2007: AG 57 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John A. Elmendorf Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluck
No. 33 R & D 2001, LLC et al. v. Douglas S. Rice et al. ISSUE - DID THE COURT ERR IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF VA.CODE ANN. SECS. 8.01-35.1 AND 8.01-443 THEREBY EXTINGUISHING FOREIGN JUDGMENT ENROLLED AGAINST THE APPELLEE? Attorney for Appellant: Jeffrey W. Harab No. 31 Cindi Renee Katherine Rush v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - MIRANDA - WHEN INTERROGATING DETECTIVE'S MODIFICATION OF MIRANDA WARNINGS TO SUGGEST THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE APPOINTED COUNSEL '"AT SOME TIME" IMPROPERLY IMPLIED THAT DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE APPOINTED COUNSEL DURING INTERROGATION? Attorney for Appellant: David Martella No. 28 Ramiro Silba Alavez v. Motor Vehicle Administration ISSUE - MVA - DID THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CORRECTLY UPHOLD MVA'S REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHERE APPLICANT IS INELIGIBLE UNDER TRANSPORTATION ART. SEC. 16-103.1(1) BECAUSE HIS DRIVER'S PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED IN ANOTHER STATE? Attorneys for Appellant: Joseph Vallario and Leonard Stamm Tuesday, November 6, 2007: No. 40 Anderson House, LLC v. Mayor and Council of Rockville ISSUE - ZONING - WHETHER MD. ANN. CTS & JUD. PROC. ART. SECTION 3-403 PROVIDES THE LOWER COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER ORDINANCE NOS. 7-03 AND 21-05 ARE VALID UNDER MARYLAND LAW AND ROCKVILLE CITY CODE? Attorney for Appellant: Patrick James Attridge No. 30 Derrick Irwin Knox v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING RULE 4-215'S REQUIREMENT THAT ACCUSED BE ADVISED OF "THE ALLOWABLE PENALTIES, INCLUDING MANDATORY PENALTIES, IF ANY", DOES NT CONTEMPLATE ALLOWABLE AND MANDATORY PENALTIES FOR SUBSEQUENT OFFENDERS? Attorney for Appellant: Piedad Gomez No. 41 Joseph Colburn et al. v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES - WHETHER EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED AT OVERTIME RATE FOR ALL HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40, PLUS ANY APPROPRIATE FEES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, FOR OVERTIME HOURS WORKED? Attorney for Appellant: Hillary Galloway Davis No. 42 Linda MacBride v. Michael M. Pishvaian ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN GRANTING JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE, ON APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES, DUE TO COURT'S DECISION THAT THE CLAIM WAS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS AND DUE TO COURTS' DECISION NOT TO APPLY "CONTINUING CONDUCT" OR "CONTINUING VIOLATION" RULE TO CLAIM? Attorneys for Appellant: John W. Hermina and C. Wm. Michaels 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 November 6, 2007, the Court will recess until November 29, 2007.
ALEXANDER L. CUMMINGS
|