Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2017

 

Thursday, November 2, 2017:

No. 25 Harold Eugene Williams v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is a conviction that is more than fifteen years old irrelevant as a matter of law to a character witness’s opinion about a defendant? 2) Were questions revealing Petitioner’s prior conviction, which occurred at least a decade before any of his character witnesses had met him, irrelevant to their opinions as to his reputation for peacefulness? 3) Were questions revealing Petitioner’s prior conviction substantially more prejudicial than they were probative of the witnesses’ opinions as to his reputation for peacefulness?

Attorney for Petitioner: Wyatt A. Feeler
Attorney for Respondent: Gary E. O'Connor

No. 21 In the Matter of The Albert G. Aaron Living Trust

Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did the trial court err in entering an order approving restatement of the living trust in which the court approved the Trustees’ restatement of the trust with respect to the survival of the Aaron Family Foundation?

Attorney for Petitioner: Stanley Alpert
Attorney for Respondent: Shale D. Stiller

 

Friday, November 3, 2017:

No. 17 Barrington Dean Watts v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Are intent to frighten and battery merely varieties of a single crime under Md’s assault statute or are they separate crimes, thus requiring individualized jury unanimity? 2) Is Petitioner’s claim of error unpreserved where Petitioner did not ask for the unanimity instruction he now claims was mandatory?

Attorney for Petitioner: Webster Beary
Attorney for Respondent: Jer Welter

No. 23 William A. Dabbs, Jr. et al. v. Anne Arundel County

Issues – County Government – 1) Did the lower courts err in determining that “…the rough proportionality test [or the rational nexus test] has no application to development impact fees. . .where monetary exactions are imposed,” in contravention of Howard County v. JJM, 301 Md. 256 (1984)? 2) Did the lower courts err in permitting the retroactive application of legislation and not finding a taking under Article III, section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?

Attorney for Petitioner: John R. Grieber, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Kurt J. Fischer

 

Monday, November 6, 2017:

Misc. No. 2 In the Matter of the Application of Maso Toussaint Hamilton for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

Attorney for Applicant: Norman Smith

Misc. No. 16 In the Matter of the Application of Mark Andrew Overall for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

Arguing for Applicant: Mark Andrew Overall

Misc. No. 17 In the Matter of the Application of Solon Phillips for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

Arguing for Applicant: Solon Phillips

AG No. 75 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mariatu Kargbo

Attorneys for Petitioner: Jennifer L. Thompson and Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Mariatu Kargbo

 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017:

AG No. 54 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Alexander Giannetti, Jr.

Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: John Alexander Giannetti, Jr.

No. 20 The Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee et al. v. Heinz Otto Georg et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Does judicial estoppel require a showing of an intention to mislead the court apart from a demonstration that the party “has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that a judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create ‘the perception that either the first or the second court was misled[.]’” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001)? 2) Is a ruling that a party lacked standing to assert its claims, but subject to the caveat that if the court was found to be wrong with regard to standing, the party failed to prove its case on the merits, a contingent ruling on the merits and thus not a final judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, or are the ruling on standing and the ruling on the merits alternative rulings, each entitled to preclusive effect?

Attorney for Petitioner: Ira L. Oring
Attorney for Respondent: Gregory T. Lawrence

 

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 7, 2017, the Court will recess until November 30, 2017.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK