Certified Questions of Law Currently Before the Court of Appeals

September Term, 2019

For further information, please contact the Clerk's Office at 410-260-1500.

 

Randy Morquell Brown v. State of Maryland; Gianpaolo Bottini v. State of Maryland; Kitrell B. Wilson v. State of Maryland - Misc. No. 30, September Term, 2018

Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Does the authority granted to the courts by Criminal Law Article § 5-609.1 to modify mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related offenses extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements and the State does not consent to modification? 2) Does the authority granted to the courts by Criminal Law Article § 5-609.1 to modify such sentences extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements in which the defendant waived his or her right to seek a modification of sentence? 3) Does § 5-609.1 require the circuit court to hold a hearing before granting or denying a motion to modify a sentence filed pursuant to the statute? 4) When does the Court of Special Appeals have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order denying a § 5-609.1 motion to modify a sentence?

To be argued in the September, 2019 session of Court.

Counsel for appellants: Brian M. Saccenti, Marc A. DeSimone, Jr., Piedad Gomez 
Counsel for appellees: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Benjamin A. Harris

 

 

William H. Plank, II, et al. v. James P. Cherneski, et al. - Misc. No. 3, September Term, 2019

Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) May minority members of an LLC (a) bring a stand-alone cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the managing member of the LLC (b) premised on allegations that the managing member was engaged in unlawful actions that placed at risk the investments of the minority members? 2) If so, is such a claim (a) limited to allegations that would support another viable cause of action, (b) limited to allegations that would not also support another viable cause of action, or (c) not limited by whether or not there is another viable cause of action to address the same conduct?

To be argued in the December, 2019 session of Court.

Counsel for appellants: James B. Astrachan, Elizabeth A. Harlan, H. Mark Stichel  
Counsel for appellees: Jeffrey M. Schwaber, Deanna L. Peters, Albert Mezzanotte, Jr., Ilana Subar

 

Baltimore City Police Department, et al. v. Ivan Potts - Misc. No. 6, September Term, 2019

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Question - Whether, under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act and related contractual provisions, in light of the undisputed facts in the record, the three former Baltimore City Police officers named in this action are entitled to indemnity for the judgment entered against them herein; that is, whether, as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, the judgment sought to be enforced by Plaintiff is based on "tortious acts or omissions committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]."

To be argued in the January, 2020 session of Court.

Counsel for appellants: Andre M. Davis, Justin S. Conroy, Kara K. Lynch, Alexa E. Curley, Natalie R. Amato  
Counsel for appellees: Paul Zukerberg, Jonathan E. Halperin