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
034
2018 Ademiluyi Egbuonu   2018-09-06
[Oral Arguments]
2018-09-06
[PC Order]
Election appeal.
 
006
2018 Rosales State 2018-03-06 2018-09-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Were the complainants prior convictions for committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity admissible for the purposes of impeachment under Md. Rules 5-609?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2659, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

005
2018 Dept. of Environment Carroll Co. 2018-03-06 2018-09-13
[Oral Arguments]
 

Environmental Law – 1) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 2) Has MDE unlawfully subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and by subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 3) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill its Permit obligations in part by using water quality trading as a compliance method? 4) Has MDE violated state law by incorporating and amending Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 1-406 through the Permit?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1095, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

007
2018 Frederick Co. Dept. of Environment 2018-03-06 2018-09-13
[Oral Arguments]
 

Environmental Law – 1) Has MDE exceeded its authority by imposing conditions in the Permit that exceed the “maximum extent practicable” standard mandated by the Clean Water Act? 2) Has MDE acted unlawfully by imposing requirements in the Permit that are impossible to achieve within the five-year permit term? 3) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 4) Has MDE improperly subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 5) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill a portion of its Permit obligations using water quality trading as a compliance method?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1202, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

020
2018 State Sewell 2018-06-01 2018-10-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court grant review to resolve a conflict among opinions in CSA by adopting a principle of narrow construction with respect to the marital communications privilege? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion by allowing the State to introduce text messages that Respondent sent to his wife’s cell phone?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2188, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

021
2018 Town of Forest Heights M-NCPPC 2018-06-01 2018-10-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err when it invalidated two Resolutions of Petitioner that, collectively, annexed into the Town approximately 737 acres of land without the consent of the owners of 25% of the assessed value of the lands annexed by each Resolution, where all the annexed lands were tax-exempt, were unoccupied, and where, consistent with City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life, 21 Md.App. 396 (1974), the owners of the land were not required to provide their consents to the annexations? 2) Did the trial court err when it determined that a portion of the Town’s Annexation Plan violates Md. Code Local Government Article, § 4-104(b), and Land Use Article, § 17-303(a), and, as a result, ordered that the Town may not exercise law enforcement on any land owned by Respondent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2538, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

017
2018 Pacheco State 2018-05-08 2018-10-09
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – In light of Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (2017), Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (2017), and Md. Code, Crim. Law § 5-601.1(a), does the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from a parked vehicle that contains a single occupant, plus the observation of suspected marijuana in an amount that is obviously less than ten grams, provide probable cause to arrest the occupant?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 133, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

019
2018 Small State 2018-06-01 2018-10-10
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – Did CSA err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 916, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

016 AG
 
021 AG
2016

2017
Attorney Grievance Edwards   2018-11-02
[Oral Arguments]
2019-02-26
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
036 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Johnson   2018-11-02
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
018
2018 Hyman State 2018-06-01 2018-11-02
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that sexual offender registration is not a direct consequence of a third-degree sex offense? 2) Did CSA incorrectly assume that Petitioner understood the consequences of sexual offender registration despite never being advised? 3) Did CSA err by giving Petitioner an illegal sentence derived from an ambiguous plea agreement? 4) Where Petitioner filed a 2006 pro se coram nobis petition that did not include the claims raised in his 2013 petition, did CSA err when it found that Petitioner had not waived the 2013 claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2416, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

011 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Maldonado   2018-11-05
[Oral Arguments]
2019-03-06
[Opinion]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
012 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Robbins   2018-11-05
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
028
2018 Smith Wakefield, LP 2018-07-12 2018-11-05
[Oral Arguments]
2019-02-27
[Opinion]

Real Property – 1) Can a single sentence in a form residential lease grant a landlord an extra 9 years to bring a claim against a tenant? 2) Does Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. (“RP”) § 8-208(d)(2) prohibit the extension of the statute of limitations to 12 years in a residential lease? 3) Even if RP § 8-208 does permit an extension of the statute of limitations, must the extension be reasonable? 4) If a reasonable extension is permitted, is it reasonable to extend the statute of limitations in a month-to-month residential lease from 3 years to 12 years?

Circuit Court for Baltimore City, No. 24-C-18-000566

024
2018 State Syed 2018-07-12 2018-11-29

[Normal Quality, 1Mbps]

[Higher Quality, 5Mbps]
2019-03-08
[Opinion]

Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that defense counsel pursuing an alibi strategy without speaking to one specific potential witness violates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel? 2) Did CSA draw itself into conflict with Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132 (1978), when it found that Respondent waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s failure to challenge cell-tower location data, where the claim implicated the fundamental right to effective counsel and was therefore subject to the statutory requirement of knowing and intelligent waiver?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2519, Sept. Term, 2013 [Opinion]

033
2018 State Thomas 2018-08-10 2018-11-29
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, may a seller of heroin be convicted of a murder-related offense where the buyer of the heroin dies after ingesting it? 2) Did CSA assume facts not in evidence and otherwise usurp the role of the fact-finder when it held that, as a matter of law, the State presented insufficient evidence of gross negligence and causation to sustain Respondent’s manslaughter conviction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1115, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

032
2018 In re: G.R.   2018-08-10 2018-11-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – Where a robbery victim whose house keys are stolen takes the reasonable and prudent action of replacing the locks that corresponded to the stolen keys, are the costs associated with replacing those compromised locks a “direct result” of the robbery for the purposes of ordering restitution?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 853, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

027
2018 Romero Perez 2018-07-12 2018-11-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

Family Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding no error and upholding the trial court’s denial of Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status, even though the trial court stated that it was applying the incorrect “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof regarding a neglect finding in an SIJ case? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the trial court had committed no error in its findings that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect, and therefore no neglect under the law, in the context of an SIJ case?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2477, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

035
2018 Floyd Baltimore 2018-08-30 2018-11-30
[Oral Arguments]
 

Issue – Zoning & Planning – Did Petitioners sufficiently plead taxpayer standing to allow their challenge to the enactment of new comprehensive zoning maps to be adjudicated and did the trial court err when it granted the motion to dismiss for lack of taxpayer standing?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1248, Sept. Term, 2017 (pending)

037
2018 George Baltimore Co. 2018-09-14 2019-01-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Local Government – Can a government entity eliminate the right of taxpayers “to bring a lawsuit in this State to prevent waste or unlawful use of public property and funds”, State Ctr., LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. P’ship, 438 Md. 451 (2014), by not increasing property tax rates for some period of time?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 47, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

036
2018 State Heath 2018-09-14 2019-01-03
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Does the introduction of evidence that opens the door to the admission of “other act” evidence operate to give the other act evidence “special relevance,” thereby relieving a party seeking to introduce the other act evidence of the burden to establish “special relevance” under Md. Rule 5-404 and State v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630 (1989)? 2) What is the correct standard of review? 3) Applying the appropriate standard of review, did CSA err first, by holding that counsel cannot open the door based upon comments made in an opening statement and second, by substituting its judgment for the trial court’s determination and making a factual finding about the intent and effect of Respondent’s counsel’s comment in opening statement and whether it opened the door to otherwise inadmissible “other act” evidence? 4) Did CSA err in concluding that admission of a comment in Respondent’s recorded statement was not harmless, where Petitioner made no further mention of the statement at trial?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2736, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

045
2018 Carver RBS Citizens 2018-10-09 2019-01-03
[Oral Arguments]
2018-02-22
[Opinion]

Civil Procedure – Did CSA err by dismissing Petitioner’s appeal as premature?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1418, Sept. Term, 2017 (dismissed)

031
2018 State Shortall 2018-08-10 2019-01-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA misapply the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), standard when it reversed the post-conviction court’s determination that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a continuing violation jury instruction? 2) Assuming CSA correctly determined that trial counsel was ineffective, did CSA err by ordering the vacating of Respondent’s convictions instead of remanding for a new trial?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 170, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

038
2018 D.L. Sheppard Pratt Health Sys. 2018-10-02 2019-01-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Health General – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that Petitioner’s challenge to her involuntary admission was moot and, alternatively, that no exception to the mootness doctrine applied? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that the applicability of the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine was not preserved for appellate review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2023, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

042
2018 Cushman & Wakefield DRV Greentec 2018-10-09 2019-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
2019-03-04
[Opinion]

Contract Law – 1) Is a third-party beneficiary without rights to enforce a contract unless he is a “primary party in interest” to the contract, or does Maryland follow the modern interpretation allowing a third party to enforce a contract right if it is appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties? 2) When a successor landlord expressly assumes a lease, and expressly represents that he is assuming “all” obligations of that lease, and has actual notice and knowledge of the lease provisions benefitting intended third parties beneficiaries, is he also assuming obligations of the original landlord to the intended third-party beneficiaries?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 369, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

043
2018 Howell State 2018-10-09 2019-01-07
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Is duress a defense to constructive criminal contempt? 2) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioner failed to meet the “some evidence” requirement to generate the defense of duress?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 459, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

040
2018 State Robertson 2018-10-09 2019-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) What is the appropriate standard of review of a trial court’s ruling that a party has “opened the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence? 2) Applying the appropriate standard of review, did CSA err by substituting its judgment for the trial court’s determination that the Respondent had opened the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2731, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

044
2018 Gallagher Mercy Medical Center 2018-10-09 2019-01-08
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Does the One Satisfaction Rule bar recovery in a lawsuit against a subsequent tortfeasor when no judgment was entered in a prior lawsuit and the prior lawsuit was resolved by settlement and a release that did not release claims against the subsequent tortfeasor? 2) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment and did CSA err in affirming the summary judgment because both courts failed to follow Maryland precedent regarding the One Satisfaction Rule and retarding the effect of release and settlement of claims?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 634, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

042 AG
2017 Attorney Grievance Blatt   2019-01-31
[Oral Arguments]
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
046
2018 LVNV Funding Finch 2018-10-09 2019-01-31
[Oral Arguments]

 

 

Business Regulations – 1) Is a judgment obtained in favor of an unlicensed collection agency by a court that has fundamental jurisdiction over the cause of action void ab initio rather than voidable? 2) Can those sued by an unlicensed collection agency, and who suffered no other injury as a result, premise private claims under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) and on common law on nothing more than a violation of Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), a statute that provides no private right of action? 3) Is an entity that owns consumer debt, and that retains a licensed collection agency to collect on that debt, nonetheless a “Collection Agency” under MCALA? 4) Did Petitioner assert a particularized objection to a jury instruction to preserve appellate review? 5) Did CSA abuse its discretion by disregarding the holding of Philip Morris USA v. Christensen, 394 Md. 224, 264-65 (2006) which adopted the doctrine of class action tolling in Md? 6) Does a party’s cause of action accrue before he or she has actual damages? 7) Did Petitioner present any admissible evidence to the trial court to support its affirmative defense that any subclass members’ claims were barred by the of statute of limitations?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1075, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

052
2018 State Jones 2018-11-07 2019-01-31
[Oral Arguments]

 

 

Criminal Law – 1) Should the accomplice corroboration rule that “a conviction may not rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice,” be revisited and either replaced or revised to allow the jury to measure the weight of the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, with appropriate instruction from the trial court to guide it in the consideration of accomplice testimony? 2) Was the testimony of Respondent’s co-conspirators sufficiently corroborated, and, therefore, the evidence sufficient to convict Respondent of conspiracy to commit armed carjacking?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1988, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)

041
2018 In re: S.K.   2018-10-09 2019-02-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the juvenile court err in finding 16-year old S.K. involved in distributing child pornography as proscribed by Md. Crim. Law Art. §11-207(a), where she was both the sender and the only depicted minor, and where the act depicted was not in itself criminal? 2) Did the juvenile court properly find S.K. involved in the offense of displaying an obscene item to a minor despite the fact that, as the Court of Special Appeals held, the statute does not specifically state that it applies to “an electronically-transmitted digital video file”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 617, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

054
2018 Collins State 2018-11-07 2019-02-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) In Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014), this Court held that on request a trial court is required to ask whether any member of the venire has strong feelings about the crimes with which the defendant is charged. Did CSA err when it held that the trial court’s failure to ask the venire properly phrased “strong feelings” questions was not reversible error in light of the fact that the trial court asked the venire whether anyone in the venire or their immediate family had been the victim of a crime? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the trial court’s failure to ask the venire properly phrased “strong feelings” questions was not reversible error in light of the fact that the trial court asked the seated jury properly phrased “strong feelings” questions after the jury had been sworn and had heard opening statements? 3) Did CSA err when it held that the trial court’s failure to ask the venire properly phrased “strong feelings” questions was not reversible error in light of the fact that the trial court asked a number of other generic questions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1992, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

051
2018 Thornton State 2018-11-07 2019-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court properly deny the motion to suppress on the grounds that Petitioner’s attempted flight from a pat-down, which the motions judge believed was based on “very questionabl[e] reasonable suspicion,” attenuated the link between any unlawful police conduct and the discovery of a firearm on Petitioner’s person? 2) Where it was never suggested in the trial court or on appeal to CSA that Petitioner’s attempted flight constituted a new crime, did CSA err in concluding that the flight established probable cause to arrest Petitioner for fleeing and eluding under the Transportation Article? 3) If Petitioner’s attempted flight did not provide probable cause to arrest him for the offense of fleeing and eluding, to what extent may flight in and of itself constitute an intervening circumstance for purposes of the attenuation doctrine? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner’s attempted flight did establish probable cause to arrest him for fleeing and eluding, does the commission of any new crime attenuate the taint from an unlawful search or seizure, or only the commission of certain crimes? 5) Did CSA misapply the third factor of the attenuation doctrine (i.e., the purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1569, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

050
2018 Baltimore Cnty. Quinlan 2018-11-07 2019-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, given the lack of a clearly defined occupational disease as the basis for the claim and evidence that the conditions were shown to be prevalent in all occupations involving heavy physical labor not uniquely related to the work of a paramedic or EMT as an inherent and inseparable risk? 2) Did CSA err in finding that Respondent met the statutory requirements set forth in LE §9-502(d)(1) and that he had sufficiently established at trial that his condition resulted from an inherent hazard of his employment as a paramedic or EMT? 3) Should this Court review the decision below under the statutory requirements and existing case law, particularly Black and Decker Corporation v. Humbert, 189 Md.App. 171 (2009), which similarly ignores the legislative requirement that a disease is only occupational if it is “due to the nature of an employment in which the hazards of the occupational disease exist” (LE §9-502(d)(1)(i)), to provide clarification and guidance on the requirement for establishing a legally sufficient claim for occupational disease?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 319, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

053
2018 State Stewart 2018-11-07 2019-02-05
[Oral Arguments]
 

Criminal Law – 1) What is the proper analysis for determining when jury verdicts are legally inconsistent? 2) Where a verbal threat was the basis for the robbery and assault charges, but the jury was instructed that second-degree “intent to frighten” assault required a finding that Respondent committed an act with the intent to place [the] victim in fear of immediate physical harm,” did CSA err in holding that the verdicts of guilty of threat-of-force robbery and not guilty of assault were legally inconsistent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1291, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

006 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Singh   2019-02-28
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
060
2018 Dackman Robinson 2018-12-13 2019-02-28
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) Did CSA, in upholding the admission of the testimony of an expert witness, fail to follow the appropriate standards elucidated in Lewin Realty III, Inc. v. Brooks (138 Md. App. 244 (2001) aff’d. 378 Md. 70 (2003)) and Sugarman v. Liles (460 Md. 396 (2018))? 2) Does it violate due process and fairness, and is it a miscarriage of justice, for a trial judge to sua sponte amend the scheduling order solely to the benefit of one party, and extend that party’s expert designation deadline by over a year, while simultaneously denying Petitioner’s request to amend their own expert deadline, extend the discovery deadline, and postpone the trial to alleviate the prejudice?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2035, Sept. Term, 2014 (unreported)

059
2018 Steele Diamond Farm Homes 2018-12-13 2019-02-28
[Oral Arguments]

Please note: This recording is in two parts. 

Part 1

Part 2
 

Corporations & Associations – 1) Was Petitioner’s defense to a suit for HOA dues, that she did not owe dues for the amounts of increases imposed without the supermajority required under the Declaration of Covenants, invalid due to ultra vires or laches? 2) Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion with an award of attorney fees against Petitioner, since Respondent submitted no affidavit, lost in district court, and the principal recovered was less than one third of the awarded attorney fees?

Circuit Court for Montgomery County,No. 9777D.

029 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Lefkowitz   2019-03-01
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
077
2017 In re: Adoption/G'ship of C.E.   2018-02-05 2019-03-01 (reargument)
[Oral Arguments]
 

2018-06-01
[Oral Arguments]

2018-12-03
[Order]
Motions for reconsideration have been granted in this matter. The original opinion has been withdrawn and supplemental briefing and reargument have been ordered.

Issues for reargument:
Family Law - Whether the parental rights of both parents must be terminated in order to grant guardianship under FL §§5-323(b) and 5-325(a)(1), whether the termination of the parental rights of only one parent is required. See FL §5-323(b), stating "a parent is unfit..." and FL §5-325(a)(1), stating "terminating a parent's duties..."

 

Family Law – 1) Does a CINA child have a protected interest in achieving a timely permanency plan of adoption that transcends his parents’ right to raise him, where the three (3) year old child has resided in the same relatives’ home since birth and where the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is “unachievable … in the foreseeable future”? 2) Is it an error of law for a court to change a CINA child’s permanency plan in guardianship proceeding conducted pursuant to Family Law §5-323? 3) Was the court’s application of its findings of exceptional circumstances to justify custody and guardianship to relatives instead of using the exceptional circumstances to support a grant of guardianship, an error of law in contravention of the statute’s clear preference for adoption over custody and guardianship? 4) Did the juvenile court err when it failed to find that the CINA child’s father was unfit to remain the child’s legal father in light of its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was no likelihood that father would ever be able to safely care for the child? 5) Did the juvenile court err as a matter of law in its exceptional circumstances analysis, by elevating an incidental “parental” relationship over the child’s best interests in achieving the permanence afforded by adoption?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1549, Sept. Term, 2016 (pending)

057
2018 MAS Associates Korotki 2018-12-13 2019-03-01
[Oral Arguments]
 

Corporations & Associations – Did the trial court misinterpret and misapply the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, in conflict with the LLC Act, by creating a partnership among three non-member employees of a longstanding LLC after their attempts to negotiate an amendment to the LLC’s 2004 Operating Agreement with its members failed?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 228, Sept. Term, 2015 (unreported)

001 JD
2018 In the Matter of Hon. Russell     2019-03-04
[Oral Arguments[
 

Judicial disabilities matter.

055
2018 In Re: Adoption/G'ship of H.R., E.R., & J.R.   2018-12-13 2019-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
2019-03-04
[PC Order]

Family Law – 1) Are the Department’s Permanency Planning Reports, which contain hearsay and double hearsay, inadmissible under the public records exception to the rule against hearsay? 2) Was CSA’s conclusion that the reports were admissible, based on its conclusion that they were an appropriate subject for judicial notice, in error? 3) Can the juvenile court admit documents for their non-hearsay purpose of forming the basis of an expert’s opinion and then, independently, rely on the evidence to support its basis for terminating a parent’s rights?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1742, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

058
2018 Wallace & Gale Asbestos Trust Busch 2018-12-13 2019-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
 

Torts – 1) May asbestos exposure to a specific defendant’s product be inferred from the defendant’s substantial presence in the facility? 2) Should juries be told that other defendants have been dismissed from the case when the complaints against them are admitted in evidence as admissions by the plaintiff?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1055, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

003 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Sanderson   2019-04-05   Attorney disciplinary matter.
063
2018 State Schlick 2019-01-07 2019-04-05  

Criminal Law – Does a court lose revisory power over a criminal sentence “after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” as Maryland Rule 4-345(e) states, or does the court indefinitely retain “fundamental jurisdiction” to revise a sentence, which it is an abuse of discretion not to consider exercising, as CSA held below?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1376, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

067
2018 Gang Montgomery Co. 2019-02-04 2019-04-05  

Worker’s Compensation – 1) Does the language in Md. Code, Labor & Employment § 9-736(b) allow a revision of an Order within five years where both parties agree on the record that the prior order was a mistake regarding the prescribed rate of pay for a “public safety employee” and where this Court in Electrical General Corp. v. Labonte, 454 Md. 113 (2017), expressly held that the Commission has continuing powers and jurisdiction to modify prior findings or Orders?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 768, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

062
2018 Moser Heffington 2019-01-07 2019-04-08  

Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion to stay in a case where: A) Respondent initiated the civil action for defamation; B) during the pendency of the civil action, Respondent was criminally indicted for the conduct at issue in the civil suit, yet Respondent had fully participated in all aspects of discovery both prior to and after the indictment, which discovery included her own deposition; and C) on the eve of trial, and four months after the indictment, Respondent filed an 11th hour motion to stay the civil trial on the grounds that she intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify at the civil trial? 2) Did Respondent waive her Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil action by testifying at her deposition and providing other discovery responses without invoking the privilege, after she was on notice that the police were investigating her for the conduct at issue? 3) Given that Respondent had already answered questions at her deposition concerning the conduct at issue, did Respondent fail to preserve for review the denial of a stay of the civil action where she failed to proffer the questions as to which she intended to invoke her right to silence – which was necessary to determine if she could validly exercise the privilege or had waived it? 4) Did CSA unnecessarily decide a Constitutional question, i.e. whether the trial court had failed to fully consider Respondent’s Fifth Amendment right by not granting a stay of the civil action, after it learned that Respondent had been convicted of the very conduct that formed the basis of the alleged defamation, which rendered moot her defamation claim?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 922, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]

068
2018 State Christian 2019-02-04 2019-04-08  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the post-conviction court and CSA err when each court declined to order a hearing to resolve serious and wide-spread concerns about the integrity of the transcripts in this case and in other criminal trials presided over by this trial court judge? 2) Did the post-conviction court err when it failed to consider whether Respondent was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to instructions that told the jurors that the court’s instructions were “binding” and that they “must apply” the law as the court explained and also told the jurors that they were the “judges of the law,” and did CSA err when it concluded that the instructions resulted in “structural error” and that, consequently, Respondent had satisfied his burden to show that but for counsel’s failure to object to the instructions, there was a substantial possibility that the outcome of his trial would have been different?

Court of Specual Appeals, No. 392, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

056
2018 Comptroller Taylor 2018-12-13 2019-04-08  

Taxation – 1) Is the value of a surviving spouse’s interest in a QTIP trust created in another state properly included in the surviving spouse’s Maryland estate, and therefore subject to the Maryland estate tax? 2) Did the Tax Court improperly waive a late-filing penalty when waiver must be supported by “affirmative evidence” and the only basis cited for the waiver was the personal representative’s erroneous interpretation of the tax laws? 3) Is Petitioner’s taxation of the QTIP trust in the estate unconstitutional? 4) Is the fact that an issue was raised before the Tax Court, but not expressly decided by that agency, sufficient to permit review of that issue on appeal from the agency ruling?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2198, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]

027 Misc.
2018 Application of Knight     2019-04-09  

Bar admissions matter.

065
2018 State Brown 2019-02-04 2019-04-09  

Criminal Procedure – 1) Does an announced sentence that is anomalous in context qualify as an “evident mistake” that is subject to correction under Maryland Rule 4-345(c)? 2) Can statements regarding the defendant’s aggregate sentence, serve under Maryland Rule 4-345(c), to “correct” a mistake in the announcement of a sentence on an individual count?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1581, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)

069
2018 Conaway State 2019-02-04 2019-04-09  

Criminal Procedure – In light of the language of the Justice Reinvestment Act (Md. Code, Crim. Proc. Art. §§ 6-223(e)(4) & 6-224(c)(2)(iv)), may a defendant obtain appellate review of a finding or decision imposing incarceration for a technical violation of probation by filing a notice of appeal, or is an application for leave to appeal required?

Court of Specual Appeals, No 183, Sept. Term, 2018 (Application for leave to appeal denied)