Cases Pending Before The Court of Appeals

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).

Click on the column title to sort by that column.

Case No. Year Petitioner Respondent Cert. Granted Oral Arguments Opinion Filed Issues
020
2020 In re: Special Investigation Misc. 1064   2020-07-13 2020-12-07

Please note: Oral Arguments in this case are sealed by order of the Court of Appeals.

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2021-06-10
[Order]

Please note: The opinion in this case is sealed by order of the Court of Appeals. 
 
Court of Special Appeals, No. 3463, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
 
009 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Jackson   2021-09-13
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
005
2021 State Galicia 2021-04-09 2021-09-13
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) When a statement against penal interest inculpates a third party, but not the defendant, does the trial court abuse its discretion when it does not allow the defendant to elicit evidence about the statement? 2) Is expert testimony required to explain to a fact-finder that a “gap” in the “location history” records for a Google account could have been caused by the account holder turning off the “location history” service?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3350, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
011
2021 Johnson State 2021-05-11 2021-10-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Is a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict violated when the State presents evidence of multiple incidents at trial to prove a single charged count, in the absence of an election between the incidents or a special jury instruction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1329, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
003 Misc.
2021 Lyles Santander Consumer USA   2021-10-04
[Oral Arguments]

These arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: If a credit grantor is found to have knowingly violated Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions ("CLEC"), Maryland Code Annotated, Commercial Law §§12-1001, et seq., does CLEC § 12-1018(b) require the credit grantor to return three times: (1) all amounts collected by the credit grantor in excess of the principal amount financed; (2) only those amounts collected that the borrower contends violate the CLEC (in this case, the convenience fee); or (3) some other amount.
008
2021 Pabst Brewing Frederick P. Winner, Ltd. 2021-05-11 2021-10-04
[Oral Arguments]

These arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Alcoholic Beverages – When control of a beer brand changes hands through a sale of the stock of a beer manufacturer, is there a “successor beer manufacturer” with the right to terminate a distribution agreement?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1882, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
047 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Malone   2021-10-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
006
2021 Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. Thornton Mellon, LLC 2021-05-11 2021-10-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Tax-Property – 1) Is a tax sale certificate no longer assignable once a court enters judgment foreclosing the right of redemption? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that a tax sale certificate is assignable after foreclosure, was the purported assignment here nonetheless invalid for failure to comply with provisions of law relating to the short assignment of mortgages? 3) Is a judgment foreclosing the right of redemption non-assignable? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that a foreclosure judgment is assignable, must the assignment be filed and docketed in the circuit court, not merely attached as an exhibit to a motion, before the assignee can enforce the judgment in the assignee’s name?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1940, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
010
2021 In Re: S.F.   2021-05-11 2021-10-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Juvenile Law – Is it improper for a juvenile court to make a school’s discretionary decision to suspend a child a violation of the child’s probation?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 582, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
007
2021 Park Plus Palisades of Towson 2021-05-11 2021-10-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the order compelling arbitration and ignoring the principles set forth in Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Anand M. Dhanda, 426 Md. 185 (2012)? 2) Did CSA err in following Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Construction, Inc., 243 Md.App. 376 (2019), which limited the application of Kumar to contracts for non-binding arbitration and held that Md. Code § 5-101 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article does not govern claims subject to contractual arbitration? 3) Did the trial court and CSA err by treating a petition to compel arbitration as a “claim” with a separate limitations period, rather than as a remedy that must be properly invoked within the applicable limitations period for the substantive claim? 4) In the alternative, did the trial court err in failing to refer the statute-of-limitations issue to the arbitrator, and thereafter in confirming the arbitral award, even though the arbitrator refused to hear Petitioner’s affirmative defense based on the statue of limitations applicable to Respondent’s claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1723, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
004 Misc.
2021 Westfield Insurance Gilliam   2021-10-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: For purposes of determining the reduction of a plaintiff's underinsured motorist benefits required by Maryland Insurance Code 19-513(e), does Maryland law treat the "write-down," or the difference between medical bills submitted by a workers' compensation claimant's health care provider and the lower amount actually paid by a workers' compensation insurer to satisfy those bills, pursuant to the Maryland Guide of Medical and Surgical Fees, as "recovered benefits" to the plaintiff under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act?
013
2021 Koushall State 2021-06-22 2021-11-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Where a conviction for misconduct in office is based on the corrupt doing of an unlawful act, does the conviction for the “unlawful act” merge with the conviction for misconduct in office for sentencing purposes? 2) Was there sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s convictions for assault in the second degree and misconduct in office?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2031, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
019
2021 Broadway Services Comptroller 2021-07-09 2021-11-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Tax-General – 1) Where tangible personal property is purchased by an intermediary contractor for the use of a non-profit charitable institution in carrying on its exempt purpose, are those purchases exempt from Maryland sales and use tax in light of John McShain, Inc. v. Comptroller, 252 Md. 68 (1953) under Md. Code § 11-204 of the Tax-General Article? 2) Were the Maryland Tax Court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence such that the purchases in question are exempt from Maryland sales and use tax?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2807, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
015
2021 State Matthews 2021-06-22 2021-11-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Did CSA err by holding that an expert witness created an “analytical gap,” and thus rendered her testimony inadmissible as a matter of law, by acknowledging the limitations of her scientific methodology?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3280, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
051 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Bonner   2021-11-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
014
2021 Amaya DGS Construction 2021-06-22 2021-11-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1857, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
017
2021 Rojas F.R. General Contractors 2021-06-22 2021-11-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report? 4) Did CSA err in importing the federal PPA compensability requirements in determining whether a benefit was conferred on Respondents for the purpose of proving a Maryland common law unjust enrichment claim, especially when Respondents failed to move for judgment on that claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1529, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
018
2021 Spiegel Bd. of Ed., Howard Cnty. 2021-06-22 2021-11-09
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Education – 1) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors 11 years of age and older from selecting a member holding a binding voting position on the Howard County Board of Education, whether by election, appointment, or any other means? 2) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors from holding the office of a binding voting position on the Board of Education of Howard County, a board which possesses general governmental power?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 117, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
022
2021 Lopez-Villa State 2021-08-02 2021-12-02
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – Where Petitioner submitted a written request for said voir dire questions and the trial court “reviewed” the questions and ruled that it was “not inclined to ask” them “because the Court will instruct on those areas of law,” did CSA err in holding that Petitioner “failed to preserve his objection to the court’s refusal to read his proposed voir dire questions,” because he “failed to ask or tell the court that he objected to the failure to ask those specific questions,” and because when, at the end of voir dire, the trial court inquired, “[d]id I miss any questions…what you previously objected to, which I will preserve for the record,” counsel responded “no”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 240, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
017 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Ficker   2021-12-02
[Oral Arguments]

 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
007 Misc.
2021 Dickson United States   2021-12-02
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Question: Under Maryland Law, can an individual be convicted of robbery by means of threatening force against property or threatening to accuse the victim of having committed sodomy?
005 Misc.
2021 Murphy Liberty Mutual Insurance   2021-12-03
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: Did the Court of Appeals act within its enabling authority under, inter alia, the State Constitution and the State Declaration of Rights when its April 24, 2020 Administrative Order tolled Maryland's statutes of limitation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
024
2021 Becker Falls Road Comm. Ass'n. 2021-08-25 2021-12-03
[Oral Arguments]
  Zoning & Planning – In order for collateral estoppel to bar a subsequently filed development plan, must the two plans be found to be identical?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 436, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
023
2021 State Jordan 2021-08-02 2021-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – Is it harmless error to fail to propound a voir dire question regarding a defendant’s right to remain silent and not testify where the defendant actually testifies?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2594, Sept. Term, 2019
041 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance O'Neill   2021-12-06
[Oral Arguments]

 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
006 Misc.
2021 Nagle & Zaller, P.C. Delegall   2021-12-06
[Oral Arguments]
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: The Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Md. Code Ann., Commercial Law §§12-301, et seq., applies to consumer "loans" made by "lenders," and requires a "person engaged in the business of making loans" to be licensed. Based upon the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, is Nagle & Zaller, P.C. subject to the statute??
016
2021 Beckwitt State 2021-06-22 2021-12-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, was the evidence legally sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Petitioner was guilty of involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt for permitting the victim to work in a home with hoarding conditions accompanied by power outages? 2) As a matter of first impression, is legal duty manslaughter a type of gross negligence manslaughter that serves as a lesser-included offense of depraved-heart murder, thereby requiring review of Petitioner’s challenges to the legal duty manslaughter conviction? 3) Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to instruct the essential elements of legal duty manslaughter, for which there is no pattern jury instruction? 4) As a matter of first impression, did the trial court lack subject matter jurisdiction to enter a conviction against an occupant of a home on a common law involuntary manslaughter charge resulting from an accidental house fire? 5) As a matter of first impression, does the line separating second-degree depraved heart murder and gross negligence manslaughter depend upon the likelihood of death and, if so, was the evidence sufficient in this case to support the jury’s verdict of second-degree murder?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 794, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
025
2021 Small MS4 Coal. Dept. of Environment 2021-08-25 2021-12-07
[Oral Arguments]
  Environmental Law – 1) Has Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) unlawfully made the Queen Anne’s County (“County”) responsible for the discharges from independent third parties and nonpoint source runoff that do not discharge from the County’s MS4? 3) Has MDE unlawfully imposed requirements beyond the maximum extent practicable in the General Permit?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1865, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
027
2021 In Re: D.D.   2021-08-28 2022-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Does the scent of marijuana provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop to determine if someone possesses a criminal amount of marijuana or could be cited for civil violations of marijuana laws? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the stop was constitutional, was the frisk unlawful because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that Respondent was armed and dangerous?


Court of Special Appeals, No. 2616, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
034
2021 Gambrill Bd. of Ed., Dorchester Cnty. 2021-09-13 2022-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the federal Coverdell Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7941, et seq., preempt Maryland law and apply to preclude any liability on the part of either school personnel or boards of education in connection with the negligence of teachers and school administrators? 2) Did the federal Coverdell Act shield the individual Respondents from liability for their negligent actions where the Respondents failed to introduce any evidence at all that Maryland accepts the prerequisite federal funding required for the Coverdell Act to apply?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 886, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
031
2021 Farmer State 2021-08-25 2022-01-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Constitutional Law – 1) As part of a juvenile lifer’s constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as recognized in Carter v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018), does a juvenile lifer have a federal constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission? 2) As part of a juvenile lifer’s constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as recognized in Carter, does a juvenile lifer have a Maryland constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission? 3) Assuming a juvenile lifer has a constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission, does that Maryland Parole system allow for the effective exercise of that right? 4) Is Petitioner’s sentence illegal pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2528, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)
103 AG
2020 Reinstatement of Singh     2022-01-10
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
2022-01-14
[Order]
In the Matter of the Petition of Raj Sanjeet Singh to the Bar of Maryland
 
030
2021 Jedlicka State 2021-08-25 2022-01-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Constitutional Law – 1) How should a sentencing court evaluate where on the McCullough “spectrum,” Carter v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018), a juvenile offender falls, and how does that analysis determine what term-of-years sentence or period of parole ineligibility is too long to comport with the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 60 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)? 2) What is the scope of the individualized sentencing requirement for juveniles who have committed homicide and did the lower court err in upholding Petitioner’s concurrent 60 year aggregate term and life suspend all but 60 years sentences, imposed without an individualized sentencing proceeding?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2471, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
006 AG
2021 Attorney Grievance Collins   2022-01-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
026
2021 Smith State 2021-08-25 2022-01-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) When a petitioner satisfies the substantive requirements for receiving coram nobis relief – i.e., they have exhausted all other available remedies, have proven that the convictions they are challenging suffer from constitutional or other fundamental error, and have established that the challenged convictions create a significant collateral consequence – to what extent does the petitioner still need to show that there are “compelling circumstances” warranting relief? 2) Where Petitioner met the established prerequisites for obtaining coram nobis relief, did the circuit court err in ruling that, under dicta in Coleman v. State, 219 Md.App. 339 (2014), there are not “compelling circumstances” to vacate Petitioner’s convictions because, inter alia, the legislative purpose behind the creation of Petitioner’s significant collateral consequence (i.e., her inability to obtain a license as a mortgage originator) takes precedence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2534, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
035
2021 Howling State 2021-09-29 2022-02-03   Criminal Law – 1) In a question of first impression, did the trial court err by giving a jury instruction that omitted a scienter requirement for the offenses charged, contrary to the holding of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), on the presumptions in law in the equivalent Federal Statute, the Rule of Lenity, and this Court’s decisions in Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638 (1988) and Chow v. State, 391 Md. 431 (2006)? 2) Under the facts of this case, in which no evidence was adduced that Petitioner was previously notified by government authorities that he was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm in Maryland, did the trial court err in giving the pre-Rehaif pattern jury instructions lacking scienter requirements?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2087, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
036
2021 Abongnelah State 2021-09-29 2022-02-03  

Criminal Law – 1) In a matter of first impression, did CSA err by holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict Petitioner of illegally possessing a regulated firearm where the State failed to prove he had knowledge of his prohibited status – i.e., that he was a convicted felon – because that result was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the analogous Federal statute in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), and was at odds with this Court’s precedent? 2) Did CSA err by upholding the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that Petitioner had knowledge of his prohibited status? 3) Was the knowledge issue raised herein adequately preserved where both trial and appellate counsel argued that Rehaif required knowledge of prohibited status and appellate counsel clarified in Appellant’s Reply Brief that prohibited status meant Petitioner’s status as a felon?



Court of Special Appeals, No. 2561, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
038
2021 Anne Arundel Cnty. 808 Bestgate Realty 2021-10-12 2022-02-03   Local Codes -- 1) Is CSA’s interpretation of § 17-11-207 of the Anne Arundel County Code in conflict with the County Charter and the County budget process as it relates to the funding of public improvements?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1156, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
032
2021 Gross State 2021-09-13 2022-02-07   Criminal Law – 1) Under Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (1975), did CSA err when it reviewed for harmless error and only analyzed the evidence put forth by the State when the Petitioner controverted the evidence at trial through multiple witnesses, including experts? 2) Under Dorsey, did CSA err when it analyzed an improperly admitted prior consistent statement for its cumulativeness since, although prior consistent statements are cumulative, it is their consistency that is the very nature of the harm? 3) Did CSA err in relying on State v. Lawson, 389 Md. 570 (2005), when it held that the social worker and doctor who gave hearsay testimony under Maryland Code § 11-304 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article “fell within the category of person contemplated by the statute” since Lawson merely affirmed the use of social worker hearsay testimony where the worker was “informed of the abuse by police officers” and here there was evidence that both witnesses were directed by law enforcement to act thus, for the purposes of the interview, the social worker and doctor were outside “the course of the person’s profession?” 4) Did CSA wrongly conclude the June 2015 video was not admissible under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1413, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
039
2021 Aleti Metropolitan Baltimore, LLC, et al. 2021-10-12 2022-02-07   Municipal Codes – 1) Does Article 13, § 5.4(a)(2) of the Baltimore City Code create an implied private right of action to recover a return of rent that a landlord was prohibited from collecting or retaining? 2) Is the money had and received cause of action available to a tenant to recover a return of rent that a landlord was prohibited from collecting or retaining by operation of § 5.4(a)(2)? 3) Is the breach of contract cause of action available to a tenant when a landlord agrees to abide by § 5.4(a)(2) and not accept, collect, or retain rent if the property is not licensed, but then collects, accepts, and retains rent in violation of § 5.4(a)2)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 459, Sept. Term, 2020 [opinion]
037
2021 Williams State 2021-10-12 2022-02-07   Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding the verdict was not impermissibly inconsistent? 2) In what circumstances does the no-impeachment rule set forth in Maryland Rule 5-606(b) yield to a defendant’s constitutional rights and a jury’s true verdict? 3) Did CSA err in holding there was sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a person younger than twenty-one?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1403, Sept. Term, 2019 [opinion]
029
2021 Malvo State 2021-08-25 2022-02-08   Constitutional Law – 1) Under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which barred life without parole “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility,” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734 (2016), do the six life without parole sentences imposed on Petitioner violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 2) Does Miller apply to Maryland’s sentencing scheme, which gives the sentencing court discretion to impose life without parole? 3) Did the sentencing court violate Miller by failing to consider Petitioner’s youth and imposing life without parole for crimes which did not reflect permanent incorrigibility? 4) Did the sentencing court violate Article 25 by imposing life without parole without finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner was permanently incorrigible? 5) Does Article 25 categorically bar life without parole sentences for juveniles? 6) Did the trial court err in ruling that the life without parole sentences imposed on Petitioner are not “illegal” under Maryland Rule 4-345(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1436, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)
041
2021 Dejarnette State 2021-10-12 2022-02-08   Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Where Petitioner challenged the admissibility of a breath test on the grounds that the police failed to sufficiently observe him for the requisite period preceding the test, does the failure to comply with the observation period go to the admissibility of the breath test results rather than their weight? 2) Does the statutory and regulatory scheme necessitate excluding breath tests where the police fail to comply with the observation period? 3) Do principles of evidentiary law – and overwhelming out-of-state authority – necessitate excluding breath tests where the police fail to comply with the observation period? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the officers’ testimony supported a finding of compliance with the observation period? 5) Did CSA err in holding that the argument – that the trial court failed to make any finding regarding compliance – was not preserved and also failed on the merits?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2316, Sept. Term, 2019 [opinion]
040
2021 Wadsworth Sharma 2021-10-12 2022-02-08   Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute, specifically, § 3-902(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, permit wrongful death beneficiaries to recover from a health care provider where the actions of the heath care provider shortened the terminally ill decedent’s life?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1703, Sept. Term, 2019 [opinion]
028
2021 Thornton Mellon Adrianne Dennis Exempt Trust 2021-08-25 2022-03-03   Tax-Property – 1) Can “impeded redemption,” a doctrine created by the trial court and upheld by the CSA, be employed in tax sale cases as a basis to dismiss timely-filed complaints to foreclose rights of redemption and deny statutory attorneys’ fees where Md. Code § 14-829 of the Tax-Property (“TP”) Article specifically provides a redemption procedure when the amount in redemption is in dispute after a complaint is filed? 2) Can a property owner who fails to redeem a property for six months after a tax sale avoid owing additional statutory attorneys’ fees under the impeded redemption doctrine without proving they had the ability to redeem the property prior to the filing of the complaint to foreclose right of redemptions? 3) Is a tax sale purchaser, after waiting the requisite six months after a tax sale, required to delay filing a complaint to foreclose right of redemption if the owner of the property states an intent to redeem the property? 4) Can a tax sale purchaser be deemed to have filed a complaint to foreclose right of redemption “prematurely” if the complaint is filed more than the requisite six months after the tax sale? 5) Was CSA correct to find that the trial court committed no errors in dismissing Petitioner’s complaint and denying its requests for attorneys’ fees based on the impeded redemption doctrine, where Respondent failed to attempt to redeem the property in accordance with TP § 14-829, conceded that she was aware of her ability to redeem the property minutes after paying fees to Petitioner, and otherwise did not provide any evidence of her ability to redeem prior to Petitioner filing its complaint? 6) Was CSA correct to find that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motions for extraordinary attorneys’ fees, when the trial court did not review the requests for fees on the merits and denied them solely on the basis that they flowed from Petitioner’s “premature” complaint?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 104, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
045
2021 Harris State 2021-11-10 2022-03-03   Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, is a common law felony murder an unintended homicide that, if perpetrated by the operation of a motor vehicle, has been preempted by the manslaughter by automobile statute, thereby precluding the common law offense from serving as a basis for a crime in Maryland? 2) Did CSA err in holding that a juvenile offender who is convicted of felony murder, and who is sentenced to a term of life with the possibility of parole, is not entitled to a constitutionally-heightened sentencing procedure to include consideration of the juvenile’s youth, the attendant circumstances, and penological justifications for a life sentence upon a juvenile for an unintentional killing?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1515, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
046
2021 Richardson State 2021-11-10 2022-03-03   Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search after concluding that the Petitioner had abandoned the property, i.e., a backpack, when both Petitioner and a police officer reached for the property at the same time, and when the police officer picked up the property first, Petitioner ran away? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the search of a cell phone found in the backpack pursuant to a search warrant based on its conclusion that the warrant satisfied the particularity requirement or, in the alternative, that the officers relied on the search warrant in good faith?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2386, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
057 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Silbiger   2022-03-04   Attorney disciplinary matter.
011 Misc.
2021 Assanah-Carroll Law Offices of Edward J. Maher   2022-03-04   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Questions: (1) Can a tenant who paid rent to a landlord in Baltimore City who lacked a license pursuant to Baltimore City Code, Art. 13 § 5-4 maintain a lawsuit under either the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (the “MCDCA”) or the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (the “MCPA”) to recover the rent paid without a showing of any damages separate from the rental payment itself? (2) Does a currently licensed landlord violate either the MCDCA or the MCPA by collecting rent from a tenant or pursuing the ejectment actions against a tenant who has failed to pay rent during a prior period when the landlord, or a prior landlord, was not licensed under Baltimore City Code, Art. 13 § 5-4, where the tenant does not allege any damages separate from the rental payment itself?
043
2021 Frankel Deane 2021-11-10 2022-03-07   Torts – 1) Did CSA err by failing to remand a medical malpractice case for application of the new Daubert evidentiary standard when considering the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the reliability of neurosensory testing and medical expert inferences of injury and medical negligence resulting therefrom, and instead concluding that Daubert was not invoked and remanding with instruction for a full trial on the merits? 2) Alternatively, did CSA err by holding that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the expert testimony?

Court of Special Apppeals, No. 218, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
044
2021 Spevak Montgomery Cnty. 2021-11-10 2022-03-07   Labor & Employment – 1) Does CSA’s holding – that when an employee who is subject to the provisions of Maryland Code § 9-610 of the Labor & Employment Article (“LE”) receives a service-connected total disability retirement from his or her employer, the offset provision applies to any permanent total or permanent partial workers’ compensation benefits the employee is awarded for injuries or diseases related to that same employment – contradict this Court’s holding in Reger v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Education, 455 Md. 68 (2017) and similar cases, which held that the term “similar” in the statute means that the benefits arose from the “same injury” as opposed to the “same employment”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 893, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
001 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Proctor   2022-03-08   Attorney disciplinary matter.
042
2021 Williams Dimensions Health Corp. 2021-11-10 2022-03-08   Torts – 1) Does Maryland law require “direct testimony” of Petitioner’s subjective belief that hospitals employ physicians through whom hospitals provide medical services in order to establish apparent agency, or can other testimonial and documentary evidence establish this element of apparent agency by inference? 2) Did the trial court err in granting the hospital’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and did CSA err in affirming this judgment?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 36, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)