SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2015
Thursday, December 3, 2015:
AG No. 86 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Garrett Vincent Williams
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Garrett Vincent Williams
No. 33 State of Maryland v. Jacob Bircher
Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in finding abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to provide a supplemental instruction on the doctrine of transferred intent?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. DeLeonardo
Attorneys for Respondent: Steven D. Silverman and Erin C. Murphy
No. 46 (2014 T.) Wicomico County Department of Social Services v. B.A. (Reargument)
Issues – Family Law – 1) In an ongoing instructor-student relationship, can "temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a child" pursuant to FL § 5-701(x)(1) be established through remote electronic communications? 2) Can "temporary care" pursuant to FL § 5-701(x)(1) be established without the mutual consent, expressed or implied, of the one legally charged with the care of the child and of the one purportedly assuming the "temporary care"? 3) Does an instructor who has temporary care or responsibility for a child on a repeated, ongoing basis, commit child abuse within the meaning of FL § 5-701 by sexually explicit communications made via texts, telephone calls or other electronic means to the child, provided there exists a significant connection between the abusive conduct and the in-person care or responsibility?
Attorney for Petitioner: Sandra Irene Barnes
Attorney for Respondent: Robert B. Fine
No. 36 Montgomery County, Maryland v. Ajay Bhatt
Issues – Transportation Law – 1) Did the lower court err in holding that the 1890 deed from George Dunlop to the Metropolitan Southern Railroad Company did not convey a right of way? 2) Did the County prove that the Respondent’s fence and shed encroached upon the right of way that was originally purchased by the Metropolitan Southern Railroad Company and later conveyed to the county for the Georgetown Branch/Capital Crescent Trail? 3) Is a railroad right of way susceptible to a private claim for adverse possession via an adjacent landowner’s encroachment when the right of way was actively used for a railway line and when there was no evidence of abandonment by the railroad? 4) Did the lower court err in holding that the Respondent acquired title to a former railroad right of way by adverse possession?
Attorney for Petitioner: Robert Birenbaum
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey C. Seaman
No. 32 Emerald Hills Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. William E. Peters, et ux.
Issues – Real Property – 1) Whether the subject residential subdivision plat, without any grant, deed, or other writing, expressly created and conveyed an easement for ingress and egress over the subdivision’s land to a property owner whose property was adjacent to, but not part of, the subdivision? 2) Whether CSA erred by concluding that there was no conflict between the access easement for Respondents and the Association’s members’ non-exclusive rights to use the open space areas in the subdivision?
Attorney for Petitioner: Philip J. Kotschenreuther
Attorney for Respondent: Ray M. Shepard
No. 34 Gary Allmond v. Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Issue – Health – Is Md. Code Ann., Health-General § 10-708, as amended, unconstitutional under the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
Attorneys for Appellant: Tassity Johnson and Debra Gardner
Attorney for Appellee: Kathleen A. Morse
No. 35 Wayne Garrity, Sr. v. Maryland State Board of Plumbing
Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Did the Md. State Bd. of Plumbing correctly invoke the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel and use it to preclusive effect against Petitioner? 2) Were Petitioner’s double jeopardy protections violated when the State Bd. of Plumbing and the Consumer Protection Division both fined him for the same conduct?
Attorney for Petitioner: Harvey K. Maizels
Attorney for Respondent: Jessica B. Kaufman
No. 38 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Jeffrey Thomas Gonce
Issue – Transportation Law – Was a suspect who agreed to take a blood alcohol test, which produced a test result of 0.00, subject to suspension under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1, when he thereafter refused to submit to a blood test for intoxicants?
Attorney for Petitioner: Leight D. Collins
Attorney for Respondent: Raymond M. Atkins, Jr.
No. 39 Injured Workers' Insurance Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund, et al.
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Should the Subsequent Injury Fund Assessment under Labor & Employment (“L&E”) § 9-806 be calculated based on the amount of the award prior to or after the offset granted under L&E § 9-610?
Attorney for Petitioner: Lyndsey Beidle Meninger
Attorney for Respondent: Ellen Dunn Jones
No. 40 Baltimore County, Maryland v. Subsequent Injury Fund, et al.
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Whether the County, when entitled to a statutory offset against an award issued by the Workers’ Compensation Commission, is obligated to pay the Subsequent Injury Fund Assessment based on the amount of the award before or after the offset is calculated?
Attorney for Petitioner: John S. Hashim, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Ellen Dunn Jones
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 7, 2015 the Court will recess until January 7, 2016.
BESSIE M. DECKER