|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, December 3, 2009: Bar Admissions
No. 52 (2008 T.) - Kenneth Martin Stachowski, Jr. v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW 0 - WHERE A CONVICTION IS ENTERED BY A GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCE IS IMPOSED AND SUSPENDED IN FAVOR OF PROBATION, MAY A TRIAL JUDGE AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION, ORDER THE DEFENDANT PAY RESTITUTION ARISING FROM AN UNRELATED CASE? Attorney for Appellant: Celia Davis No. 16 (2008 T.) -Wayne Stockstill v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT REVOKING APPELLANT'S PROBATION SHOULD BE VACATED AND PROBATION RESINSTATED BECAUSE THE REVOCATION WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE ADMITTED IN VIOLATION OF MARYLAND PSYCHIATRIST-PATIENT PRIVELEGE STATUTE? Attorney for Appellant: Rachel Marbleston Kamins
No. 96 - 120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, Baltimore Development Corp. and Lexington Square Partnership, LLC ISSUES - (1) IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY REFUSING TO RESOLVE ALL FACTS AND INFERENCES AGAINST MOVANT RESPONDENTS AND BY RECOGNIZING ONLY THE “FACTS” PRESENTED BY RESPONDENTS? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED ON RIPENESS GROUNDS A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS ON THE OVERRIDING CONTROL OF THE 2001 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BALTIMORE AND THE STATE OF MD ON SUPERBLOCK REVITALIZATION AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON NEW CONSTRUCTION IN ANY WESTSIDE REVITALIZATION? (3) WAS THE CHALLENGED LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT MORE THAN A “MERE SALE OF LAND,” IN DEROGATION OF THE CITY CHARTER REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND ULTRA VIRES BECAUSE CEREMONIAL APPROVAL FOR THE LDA WAS ALL THAT REMAINED FOR THE BOARD OF ESTIMATES IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CHARTER AND THE EXPRESS POWERS DOCTRINE? Attorney for Appellant: M. Albert Figinski
No. 37 Harriette Julian v. Joseph Buonassissi, et al. ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - FORECLOSURE - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT AN EXPRESS VIOLATION OF A BROAD REMEDIAL STATUTE RENDERED THE UNDERLYING TRANSACTION MERELY VOIDABLE AND NOT VOID AD INITIO? (2) IF, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE TRANSACTION IS VOIDABLE, DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER ADDUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE ON NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE CONSULTING CONTRACT AND THEREBY SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVE BONA FIDES? (3) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REQUIRING AS A CONDITION OF THE CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF AN APPEAL, THAT SUCH PARTY POST A BOND COMMENSURATE WITH THE UNDISPUTED AMOUNTS THEY RECEIVED? Attorneys for Appellant: Phillip Robinson and C. Matthew Hill
No. 46 -Monica Allen, Individually, etc., et al. v. Jay Dackman ISSUE - COMMERCIAL LAW - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - WAS THE LOWER COURT INCORRECT IN AFFIRMING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT OWN, HOLD OR CONTROL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE? Attorney for Appellant: Brian S. Brown
Friday, December 4, 2009: AG No. 23 - Attorney Grievance Commission v. Barry Kent Downey Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee ISSUE - WHETHER A POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN DENY AN EMPLOYEE A SPECIAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT WHEN THE EMPLOYEE’S DISABILITY DID NOT ARISE FROM THE EMPLOYEE’S MISCONDUCT, BUT RATHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING THE MISCONDUCT? Attorney for Appellant: Michael Marshall
CRIMINAL LAW - ISSUE - DID THE LOWER COURT MISTAKENLY HOLD THAT RULE 4-215(e) WAS TRIGGERED WHEN RESPONDENT NEVER MADE A PRESENT REQUEST TO DISCHARGE COUNSEL? Attorney for Appellant: Daniel J. Jawor No. 41 In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D., Jr. and Shaydon S. ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - WHETHER PETITIONER’S SONS WERE INVOLUNTARILY TAKEN FROM HIS CUSTODY AND, OVER HIS OBJECTIONS, WERE KEPT IN THE CUSTODY OF A THIRD PARTY FOR SIX YEARS, WAS IT ERROR FOR THE LOWER COURT TO FIND THAT THIS PERIOD OF SEPARATION BETWEEN FATHER AND SONS, AND THE COMMENSURATE BONDING BETWEEN THE CHILDREN AND THE FOSTER MOTHER, WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO PRESERVE PETITIONER’S INHERENT RIGHTS AS A NATURAL PARENT TO THE CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF HIS SONS? Attorney for Appellant: Marc A. DeSimone, Jr.
ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - FORECLOSURE - (1) WHETHER THE TIME OF DETERMINING BONA FIDE PURCHASER STATUS IS TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF THE SUCCESSFUL BID AT A FORECLOSURE SALE OR AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE PURCHASE PRICE IS PAID? (2) WHETHER A FORECLOSURE PURCHASER WHO DOES NOT SETTLE ON HIS PURCHASE UNTIL FOURTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE, LONG AFTER AN APPEAL HAS BEEN NOTED AND LONG AFTER THE DATE REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF SALE, AND BY THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT HAS NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE SALE, IS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER? Attorney for Appellant: Dale A. Cooter
Monday, December 7, 2009: No. 49 Sheila Boulden v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - MAY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT EFFECTIVELY WAIVE HIS OR HER RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL? Attorney for Appellant: Piedad Gomez No. 53 In Re: Breanna C. and Robert C., Jr. ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - IS A PARENT GRANTED “VISITATION” WITH HIS CHILD WHEN HE IS MERELY ALLOWED TO HAVE “WRITTEN OR TELEPHONIC CORRESPONDENCE” WITH THAT CHILD? Attorney for Appellant: Piedad Gomez No. 47 Clarence Henry v. State of Maryland Edward Dove, Jr. ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DOES THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT APPLY WHERE BOTH THE INTENDED VICTIM AND AN UNINTENDED VICTIM ARE KILLED? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AS TO THE UNINTENDED VICTIM WHERE THE COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON SECOND DEGREE DEPRAVED HEART MURDER? Attorney for Appellant: Amy E. Brennan No. 40 - Motor Vehicle Administration v. John Edward Doce, Jr. ISSUE - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CORRECT TO FIND THAT A MOTORCYCLIST, WHO REFUSED TO TAKE AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION TEST WHEN HE WAS AT A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM, IMMOBILIZED ON A CERVICAL BACKBOARD, AND SUFFERING FROM A BROKEN WRIST, SHOULD HAVE HIS DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENDED DUE TO THAT REFUSAL WHERE THE MOTORCYCLIST ASSERTED THAT HIS REFUSAL OF THE REQUESTED TEST WAS JUSTIFIED BY HIS FEAR OF NEEDLES, HIS PREFERENCE FOR A BREATH TEST, AND BY A LATER ADMINISTRATION OF AN ALCOHOL CONTENT TEST BY HOSPITAL STAFF? Attorney for Appellant: Dore J. Lebowitz
Tuesday, December 8, 2009: No. 42 Thomas Peter Headen v. Motor Vehicle Administration ISSUES - TRANSPORTATION - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED THE MVA’S REFUSAL TO EXPUNGE SELECTED TRAFFIC CONVICTIONS BASED ON AN ILLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. SECTION 16-117.1 UNDER WHICH THE PETITION WAS AT THE SAME TIME BOTH ELIGIBLE FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF “PUBLIC” DRIVING RECORDS BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN CONVICTION FREE FOR TEN YEARS AS REQUIRED BY MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. SECTION 16-117.1 AND INELIGIBLE FOR EXPUNGEMENT BECAUSE MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. SECTION 12-111(b)(2) DEFINES “PUBLIC” RECORDS AS BEING RECORDS UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ORDERING THE MVA TO PROVIDE PETITIONER A HEARING TO CONTEST MVA’S REFUSAL TO ISSUE HIM A DRIVER’S LICENSE, AFTER THE AGENCY REFUSED HIS APPLICATION, PURSUANT TO MD. CODE ANN., TRANSP. SECTION 16-103.1(1) BASED ON THE PERMANENT REVOCATION OF HIS DRIVER’S LICENSE BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA? Attorney for Appellant: Leonard R. Stamm No. 43 Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Tiffany Hamilton ISSUES - ATTORNEYS FEES - (1) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL SOUGHT, A PRACTICE THAT IT CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYS IN EACH AND EVERY CASE COMING BEFORE IT? (2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED BY PETITIONER WHEN IT CREATED A LIEN AGAINST RESPONDENT’S LOT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS? (3) WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO AWARD ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED ON THE APPEAL OF THIS MATTER, BUT DETERMINED THAT ALL OF THE ATTORNEY’S FEES REQUESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT MATTER WERE FAIR AND RESPONSIBLE AND AWARDED SUCH FEES? Attorney for Appellant: Craig B. Zaller No. 44 Montpelier Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bode and Bonike Thomas-Ojo ISSUES - ATTORNEYS FEES (1) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL SOUGHT, A PRACTICE THAT IT HAS BEGUN TO EMPLOY IN MANY COLLECTIONS CASES COMING BEFORE IT? (2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED BY PETITION WHEN IT CREATED A LIEN AGAINST RESPONDENTS’ LOT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS? (3) WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT INCREASED THE ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD GIVEN IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO A FLAT $300.00 WITH NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT SUCH FEE AWARD WAS FOR, BUT REFUSED TO AWARD ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED ON THE APPEAL OF THIS MATTER TO THAT COURT? Attorney for Appellant: Craig B. Zaller No. 45 Constant Friendship Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Kevin Tillery ISSUES - ATTORNEYS FEES - (1) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL SOUGHT, A PRACTICE THAT IT CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYS IN EACH AND EVERY CASE COMING BEFORE IT? (2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF MD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED BY PETITION WHEN IT CREATED A LIEN AGAINST RESPONDENT’S LOT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS? (3) WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO AWARD ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED ON THE APPEAL ON THIS MATTER, DESPITE HAVING DETERMINED THAT ALL OF THE ATTORNEY’S FEES REQUESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT MATTER WERE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND AWARDING SUCH FEES? Attorney for Appellant: Craig B. Zaller
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 December 8, 2009, the Court will recess until January 7, 2010.
BESSIE M. DECKER
|