|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
I IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, November 5, 2009: Bar Admissions AG 41 (2008T) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Owusu Kwarteng Attorney for Petitioner: Gail Kessler No. 36 Richard White v. State of Maryland ISSUES - NEGLIGENCE - FIREMAN’S RULE - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT’S DECISION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION UNDERLYING THE FIREMAN’S RULE AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AND CREATES CONFLICT IN THE LAW WHICH INEQUITABLY PENALIZES EMERGENCY POLICE RESPONDERS UNDER THE GUISE OF THE FIREMAN’S RULE BY CREATING AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO THEIR RECOVERY FOR INJURIES OCCURRING WHILE ON DUTY? (2) WHETHER SPECIFIC ENUMERATION OF A “SPECIAL DUTY” EXCEPTION TO THE FIREMAN’S RULE IS WARRANTED? Attorney for Appellant: Henry L. Belsky No. 28 Stephen W. Schultz, Personal Representative of the Estate of Melvin Ray Schultz v. Bank of America, National Association ISSUES - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - (1) IS AN EXPERT OPINION NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR A BANK WHEN ADDING A CUSTOMER TO AN ACCOUNT? (2) DOES THIS CASE OVERRULE PRIOR PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT AND LOWER COURT AS TO NECESSITY OF EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY AS ESTABLISHING THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR BANKS AND OTHER INDUSTRIES? (3) DOES THE IMPLIED DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE IMPLICIT IN A DEPOSITOR-BANK CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRE PROOF OF ANY EVIDENCE BEYOND THIS IMPLIED DUTY? No. 22 Robert L. Thomas v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN INSTRUCTING JURY THAT IT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CRIME OF BRIBERY THAT THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DID NOT HAVE THE ACTUAL AUTHORITY, POWER OR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE ACT FOR WHICH PAYMENT WAS DEMANDED OR RECEIVED? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY ALLOWING A WITNESS FOR THE STATE TO TESTIFY TO HIS OPINION REGARDING PETITIONER’S ROLE IN THE ALLEGED BRIBERY SCHEME? ISSUES - STATUTORY - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CAP ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN CJP SECTION 3-2A-09 DOES NOT APPLY TO HEALTH CARE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS IN WHICH ARBITRATION HAS BEEN WAIVED? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, IF THE CAP DOES APPLY TO CLAIMS IN WHICH ARBITRATION HAS BEEN WAIVED, THE COURT SHOULD APPLY A PRO RATA JOINT TORTFEASOR REDUCTION PRIOR TO APPLYING THE LIMITATION ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES? (3) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CJP SECTION 3-2A-09(d)(l) DOES NOT MANDATE A REDUCTION OF THE VERDICT TO EXCLUDE PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES THAT WERE NOT, AND WILL NOT BE PAID BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE PATIENT? No. 30 Tony Williams v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ADMITTING A VIDEOTAPE OF PRIOR TESTIMONY OF THE STATE’S KEY WITNESS WHO DIED BEFORE PETITIONER’S SECOND TRIAL, WHERE THE PROSECUTION HAD WITHHELD EVIDENCE THAT THE KEY WITNESS WAS “LEGALLY BLIND” THEREBY DENYING PETITIONER A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT REFUSED TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S INDICTMENT WITH PREJUDICE DUE TO PROSECUTION’S BRADY AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE VIOLATIONS? Attorney for Appellant: Gary E. Bair No. 39 Curtis O. Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder and Adkins, LLC ISSUE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING THE GARNISHEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT COURTS ARTICLE, SECTION 11-504(B)(2) PROVIDES AN EXEMPTION FROM EXECUTION FOR MONEY PAYABLE IN THE EVENT OF SICKNESS, ACCIDENT OR INJURY, EVEN THOUGH MARYLAND AND FEDERAL PUBLIC POLICY FAVOR EXCEPTING A JUDGMENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT FROM THE EXEMPTION STATUES? ISSUES - INSURANCE - (1) DOES THE LEGAL ACTION CLAUSE IN THE MARYLAND CHANGES ENDORSEMENT TO AN INSURANCE POLICY INQUIRING THAT LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER INVOLVING LOSS BE BROUGHT WITHIN 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE THE INSURED DISCOVERS THE LOSS (a) VIOLATE SECTION 12-104 OF THE INSURANCE ARTICLE? AND (b) ESTABLISH THE INSURED’S DISCOVERY OF LOSS AS THE AGREED ACCRUAL DATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF THE 3-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD? (2) DOES THE REQUIREMENT IN THE LEGAL ACTION CLAUSE IN THE MARYLAND CHANGES ENDORSEMENT TO AN INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDING THAT THE INSURED MAY NOT BRING SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER UNTIL 90 DAYS AFTER THE INSURED HAS FILED PROOF OF LOSS WITH THE INSURER, OPERATE TO IMPERMISSIBLY SHORTEN THE 3-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 12-104 OF THE INSURANCE ARTICLE? Attorney for Appellant: Joel P. Williams No. 24 Ruffin Hotel Corporation of Maryland, Inc. v. Kathleen Gasper ISSUES - LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - (1) IN RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIMS SHOULD JURIES BE INSTRUCTED THAT PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE THAT RETALIATION WAS A “DETERMINING FACTOR,” AS OPPOSED TO A “MOTIVATING FACTOR,” IN HER TERMINATION? (2) IS A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CLAIM BASED UPON ALLEGE SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ALLEGEDLY RETALIATORY DISCHARGE PREEMPTED BY MD ANTI-DISCRIMINATION STATUTES? (3) DOES MD WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT PREEMPT A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CLAIM BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE AGAINST HER EMPLOYER? No. 23 Joseph M. Della Ratta, et al. v. Edward J. Dyas, Jr. ISSUES - CORPORATIONS & ASSOCIATIONS - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT HAVE THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO DISSOLVE BAY VIEW CONDOMINIUMS, LLC AND JUDICIALLY SUPERVISE THE WINDING UP OF SPA MOTEL GENERAL PARTNERSHIP? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO ALLOW PETITIONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE PROFFERED EXHIBIT L26 INTO THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT APPOINTED AUDITOR DURING THE ACCOUNTING PHASE OF THE CASE AND DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY AFFIRMING THAT DECISION? Attorney for Appellant: James E. Carbine No. 27 Charles F. Moore, Jr. v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER AS THIS COURT HELD IN BOWIE V. STATE IS IT MANDATORY UPON TIMELY REQUEST BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT THAT A TRIAL COURT ASK POTENTIAL JURORS ON VOIR DIRE WHETHER THEY WOULD TEND TO VIEW THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES CALLED BY THE DEFENSE WITH MORE SKEPTICISM THAN THAT OF WITNESSES CALLED BY THE STATE, MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE CALLED BY THE DEFENSE? Attorney for Appellant: Michael G. Pattillo, Jr. ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT A JURISDICTIONAL BASIS AND IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICEMEMBER’S CIVIL RELIEF ACT (SCRA)? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DECLINING TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION TO PROTECT PETITIONER’S RIGHTS IN RESTORING THE STATUS QUO ANTE AND NOT RETURNING THE MINOR CHILD TO PETITIONER? (3) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH NOTICE OF COLLATERAL PLEADINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDING? Attorney for Appellant: Nicholas D. Capousis No. 34 Emma Elder v. Cherry Elder Smith, Personal Representative of the Estate of Colonel Percy Elder, Sr. ISSUES - ESTATES AND TRUSTS - (1) WHETHER THE ENFORCEMENT OF A LIEN OF A RECORDED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE OF A DECEASED JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS EXEMPT FROM ADMINISTRATION BY AN ORPHANS’ COURT OR WHETHER THAT REAL PROPERTY BECOMES PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORPHANS COURT BECAUSE THE LIEN WAS OBTAINED BY JUDGMENTS RECORDED AFTER THE DECEDENT’S DEATH? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRONEOUSLY DECLARED AN EXCEPTION FROM THREE STATUTES, ABSOLUTE IN THEIR TERMS, WHICH EXEMPT FROM ADMINISTRATION BY THE ORPHANS’ COURT THE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF REAL ESTATE UPON WHICH A JUDGMENT LIEN HAS BEEN OBTAINED? Attorney for Appellant: Harry Goldman, Jr. Misc. AG No. 18 Attorney Grievance Commission v. Richard J. Haas Attorney for Petitioner: Glenn M. Grossman Misc. 1 Sylvester Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Attorney for Appellant: Andrew Baida No. 33 Betty A. Appiah, et al. v. Bruce Edward Hall, et al. ISSUES - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - (1) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTED AND LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DESPITE DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DEROGATION OF PROPER CONCEPTUALIZATION, INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULE? (2) WHETHER THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESTS ON AN ERRANT INTERPRETATION OF THE “RIGHT TO CONTROL” REQUIRED FOR LIABILITY UNDER RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, SECTION 414? Attorneys for Appellant: M. Albert Figinski and Jeffrey J. Utermohle No. 29 Miller and Smith at Quercus, L.L.C., et al. v. Casey PMN, LLC ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - (1) DOES THE TERM “SALES PROCEEDS PAYABLE” AS USED IN A PRIVATE CONTRACT INCORPORATING MD. CODE ANN. COMM. LAW, SECTION 9-102(A)(65) INCLUDE TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR WHICH THE SELLER MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE? (2) MAY A PARTY, THROUGH A VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CAUSE A NON-FINAL JUDGMENT TO BECOME FINAL? (3) MAY AN APPELLATE COURT CONSTRUE AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT AS A MATTER OF LAW WITHOUT GIVING THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE? Attorney for Appellant: Paul T. Glasgow ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT, PURPORTING TO REIN IN THE “EXPANSIONIST TIDE THAT PRODUCED” THIS COURT’S DECISIONS IN STODDARD AND BERNADYN, ERR IN HOLDING THAT AN OUT-OF COURT STATEMENT BY A NON-TESTIFYING, UNNAMED CALLER TO PETITIONER’S CELL PHONE IN WHICH THE CALLER SAID, “CAN I GET A 40,” WAS NOT HEARSAY? (2) ARE THE RULE 4-215(e) REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY WHERE THE TRIAL COURT PERMITS A DEFENDANT TO DISCHARGE COUNSEL, APPLICABLE WHERE COUNSEL WAS NOT ACTUALLY DISCHARGED BUT INSTEAD CONDUCTED ALL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL? 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 November 10, 2009, the Court will recess until December 3, 2009.
BESSIE M. DECKER |