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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
019 | 2022 | Walker | State | 2022-08-25 | 2022-12-05 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-07-28 [Opinion] | Public Safety – 1) Do the destruction and expungement provisions of the Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Code § 2-511 of the Public Safety (“P.S.”) apply to DNA samples collected from a person pursuant to a search warrant after the person is arrested and charged, or do those provisions apply only to so-called “arrestee” samples, as the Act has been interpreted in regulations promulgated by the Department of State Police? 2) Did the lower courts err in concluding that P.S. § 2-511 does not contain an exclusionary rule for violations of the destruction and expungement provisions of the Act? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the destruction and expungement provisions in P.S. § 2-511 apply only to arrestee samples, was the trial court’s finding of fact, that the DNA sample at issue here was not an arrestee sample, clearly erroneous; or, in the alternative, if the record is unclear as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample, should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Md. Rules 8-604, so that the court can receive evidence and make findings of fact as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample or was collected from Petitioner pursuant to a search warrant for his DNA? 4) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress DNA evidence? Court of Special Appeals, No. 433, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) |
024 | 2022 | Fooks | State | 2022-11-18 | 2023-03-02 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-08-15 [PC Order] | Constitutional Law – 1) In view of existing Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent interim decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 597 U.S. --- (June 23, 2022), what is the proper analytical framework to apply to constitutional challenges to Maryland’s firearms laws? 2) Did CSA fail to apply the proper analytical framework to the constitutional challenges in this case? 3) Is Md. Code § 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to this case? Court of Special Appeals, No. 269, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
030 | 2022 | Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, etc., P.A. | Parkway Neuroscience & Spine | 2023-01-20 | 2023-05-04 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-08-30 [Opinion] | Maryland Rules – Did ACM err in finding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on lost profits? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 658, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] |
001 | 2023 | Matter of SmartEnergy Holdings | 2023-03-07 | 2023-09-07 [Oral Arguments] | Public Utilities – 1) Did the ACM err in finding that the Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) has jurisdiction to interpret and enforce Md. Code, Commercial Law §14-2201(f), the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act (“MTSA”)? 2) Did the ACM err in finding that a telephone call made by a potential customer to SmartEnergy in response to a previously mailed postcard was a violation of the MTSA? 3) Did the ACM err in holding that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was not arbitrary and capricious? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1675, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] | ||
062 Misc. | 2022 | Application of Howie | 2023-09-08 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-11-28 [Order] | In the Matter of the Application of Samuel E. Howie for Admission to the Bar of Maryland | ||
002 | 2023 | Browne | State | 2023-03-07 | 2023-09-08 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-11-28 [Opinion] | Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM err by deciding on its own initiative that Maryland courts should no longer adhere to the exclusionary approach to other-crimes evidence under Md. Rule 5-404(b), when that issue was not decided by the trial judge and was not raised, briefed, or argued by the parties on appeal? 2) If not, should this Court reject the ACM’s exclusionary approach to Md. Rule 5-404(b)? 3) Did ACM err by adopting the “doctrine of chances” and by applying that doctrine to this case? 4) In a trial for the abuse and murder of Petitioner’s girlfriend’s toddler, did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by allowing evidence relating to Petitioner’s previous Alford plea to child abuse resulting in the death of his own baby? 5) Does “due diligence” under Md. Rule 4-331(c) require defense attorneys to audit the contents of the State’s admitted exhibits before allowing the exhibits to go to the jury? 6) Where defense counsel relied on the prosecutor’s representations regarding the contents of the State’s exhibits, did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial, which was based on a discovery that videos pertaining to the case but not admitted into evidence had been present in the jury room during deliberations? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1892, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported) |
003 | 2023 | In re: M.P. | 2023-03-24 | 2023-09-08 [Oral Arguments] | 2023-09-08 [PC Order] | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As an issue of first impression, does the newly enacted Juvenile Justice Reform Act (“JJRA”), Md. Code Ann. § 3-8A-03 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, which establishes a minimum age of jurisdiction for the juvenile court, apply to cases pending at the time of the statute’s enactment? 2) As an issue of first impression, is an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of juvenile court jurisdiction immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1137, Sept. Term, 2022 (pending) | |
065 Misc | 2022 | In the Matter of A.C. | 2023-10-02 [Oral Arguments] | Accomodations Review Committee appeal. | |||
005 | 2023 | Riley Rev. Trust | Venice Beach Cit. Ass'n | 2023-06-15 | 2023-10-02 [Oral Arguments] | Real Property – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by vacating and reversing an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Petitioner, given that the court (a) did not vacate the interlocutory order until the conclusion of a trial in which Petitioner had no reason to put on evidence concerning claims that were already adjudicated in its favor and (b) entered judgment in favor of Respondent because, according to the ACM, “the evidence at trial did not support” Petitioner’s claims? 2) Did the ACM abuse its discretion by directing the trial court to reconsider Respondent’s counter-complaint on remand, given that final judgment was entered against Respondent on its counter-complaint, Respondent didn’t note any cross-appeal from the judgment, and Respondent did not assert any error regarding the trial court’s judgment in its brief to the ACM? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1064, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) | |
007 | 2023 | Syed | Lee, et al. | 2023-06-28 | 2023-10-05 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a lawfully entered nolle prosequi render moot an appeal alleging procedural violations at a hearing occurring prior to the nolle prosequi? 2) Does a victim’s representative, a non-party to a case, have the right to attend a vacatur hearing in-person or does remote attendance satisfy the right? 3) Was notice to the victim’s representative of the vacatur hearing sufficient where the State complied with all statutory and rules-based notice requirements? 4) Must a victim’s representative seeking reversal show prejudice on appeal? 5) Is a victim’s right to speak incorporated into the Vacatur Statute, Md. Code § 8-301.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article, where no party or entity other than the victim has an interest in challenging the evidence alleged to support vacatur? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1291, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
006 | 2023 | Motor Vehicle Admin. | Usan | 2023-06-15 | 2023-11-03 | Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that reasonable grounds existed under Md. Code § 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article for a law enforcement officer to request a motorist to take a test for alcohol concentration, despite there being no odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath and a preliminary breath test result reflecting 0.00 blood alcohol content, but where the motorist was driving erratically and with indicia of intoxication to include horizontal gaze nystagmus and lack of coordination and balance? Circuit Court for Charles County, No. C-08-CV-22-000278 | |
010 | 2023 | In the Matter of McCloy | 2023-08-11 | 2023-11-03 [Oral Arguments] Please note: These oral arguments were held at Dr. Henry A. Wise, Jr. High School in Upper Marlboro, MD. | Public Safety – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the Maryland State Police’s (“MSP”) denial of petitioner’s application to purchase a regulated firearm? 2) Did ACM err in finding that the relevant Md. statute to be considered for equivalence is the statue in effect at the time of the application, not the statute in effect at the time of the out-of-state conviction? 3) Did ACM err in adopting a “substantial evidence” test that fails to provide clear criteria for determining the equivalence of out-of-state offenses and affords unreasonable deference to the agency’s changing statutory interpretations? 4) Did ACM err in finding that a “reasonable mind” could accept the MSP’s conclusion, given that MSP’s conclusion has abruptly and inexplicably changed absent any changes to the relevant facts or law? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 673, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | ||
001 Misc. | 2023 | Application of Wright | 2023-11-06 [Oral Arguments] | In the Matter of the Application of Ian Patrick Wright for Admission to the Bar of Maryland | |||
008 | 2023 | Mitchell | State | 2023-07-26 | 2023-11-06 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Law – Should Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146 (2007) – which summarily rejected the request to ask voir dire questions regarding the credibility of children, like the one at issue in this case, that is: whether any prospective juror would be more or less likely to believe a witness merely because the witness is a child – be reconsidered in light of recent case law governing voir dire? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 560, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
004 | 2023 | Westminster Management | Smith | 2023-06-15 | 2023-11-06 [Oral Arguments] | Real Property – 1) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that the undefined term “rent” in Md. Code § 8-401 of the Real Property (“RP”) Article means only the periodic charge for use or occupancy of the premises, contrary to this Court’s precedent? 2) Does Maryland law allow a landlord and tenant to contract in the lease the manner in which the tenant’s payments for rent and other hard costs will be applied and allocated? 3) Does Maryland law allow a landlord to pass on its costs in initiating a summary ejectment action under RP § 8-401, including agent and summons fees, to a delinquent tenant under a lease? 4) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial courts denial of class certification, where the unique and individualized circumstances of the claims and defenses as to each putative claimant render this lawsuit unsuitable for class action treatment? 5) Whether Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on liability and declaratory judgments regarding their rights? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 2508, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion] | |
009 | 2023 | Cunningham ex rel Gaines | Baltimore Cty. | 2023-08-11 | 2023-12-04 [Oral Arguments] | Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err in holding that the law enforcement officer was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to petitioner’s innocent bystander’s substantive due process claim? 2) Does a party waive appellate rights in a second appeal following remand on an issue the trial court did not address in the proceedings prior to the first appeal? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 378, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
011 | 2023 | Petition of Md. Off. of People's Counsel | 2023-08-11 | 2023-12-04 [Oral Arguments] | Public Utilities – 1) Should the Public Service Commission’s interpretation of the Merger Order be given the usual deference afforded Commission evidentiary findings, rather than reviewed in the light of the parties’ reasonable understanding of the Merger Order at the time it was issued? 2) Does an increase of $7.8 million in corporate costs post-merger comply with the Merger Order’s plain language, intent, and purpose that the merger produce “tangible financial benefits” in the form of a “reduction in distribution rates” for customers? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 755, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | ||
053 AG | 2022 | Attorney Grievance | Donnelly | 2023-12-05 [Oral Arguments] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
012 | 2023 | Matthews | State | 2023-12-05 [Oral Arguments] | DNA Appeal | ||
017 | 2023 | Doctor's Weight Loss Ctrs. | Blackston | 2023-09-22 | 2024-01-08 | Torts – Did ACM utilize the correct standard for determining when a cause of action manifested itself to determine the correct choice of law using the lex loci delicti rule? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 533, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
018 | 2023 | African Cemetery Coalition | Housing Opportunities Comm'n | 2023-09-22 | 2021-01-08 | Business Regulations – 1) Did the ACM err in holding that §5-505 of the Business Relations Article of the Md. Code is nothing more than a “quiet title” statute, providing land owners with an optional proceeding that they may choose to institute when selling land containing a burial ground if they wish to convey a “clean” title to the realty? 2) Under Maryland law, does a court of equity need to assess whether (and if so, on what conditions) a property owner can sell land containing a burial ground for non-burial use in view of the 1829 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Beatty v. Kurtz, which (applying Maryland law) charged courts of chancery operating pursuant to their equity powers “to preserve the repose of the ashes of the dead and the religious sensibilities of the living,” as well as subsequent decisions by this Court and other courts? Apellate Court of Maryland, No. 1488, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion] | |
015 | 2023 | State | Thomas | 2023-09-22 | 2024-02-05 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland Rule 4-345(e), which states that a court “may not revise the sentence after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” mean that a court may not revise a sentence under Rule 4-345(e) after the five-year period expires? 2) Where a defendant timely files a motion to modify under Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and repeatedly requests a hearing on the motion, is the trial court required to exercise its discretion within five years, i.e. either deny the motion without a hearing or hold a hearing to determine whether to grant the motion, or does the rule permit the court to let the five years lapse without exercising discretion? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 657, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported) | |
016 | 2023 | Adventist HealthCare | Behram | 2023-09-22 | 2024-02-05 | Health Occupations – 1) Did the ACM err by relying on extrinsic evidence in its interpretation of the fully integrated Settlement Agreement without determining whether the Agreement is ambiguous or considering the effect of its integration clause in contravention of settled Maryland law? 2) Did the ACM err by failing to apply standard principles of contract interpretation, by interpreting a Settlement Agreement that expressly releases claims related to three specific events, as unambiguously releasing claims related to other events, and thereby exclude extrinsic evidence that showed that the parties did not intend to release claims related to those other events? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 375, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
019 | 2023 | Rovin | State | 2023-10-23 | 2024-02-06 | Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err in concluding that the “objectively reasonable” mistake of law test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014), applies to civil constitutional tort claims arising under the Maryland Constitution, including Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 2) Did ACM err in concluding that the “objectively reasonable” mistake of law test articulated in Heien applies to claims arising under Maryland’s common law, such as for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution? 3) Did ACM err in determining that the officers in Petitioner’s case made an objectively reasonable mistake-of-law in arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting her and that, as a result, Petitioner’s claims failed as a matter of law? 4) Did ACM err in determining that the juror intimidation statute in Md. Code Criminal Law Article § 9-305(a) was not unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the due process protections guaranteed by Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 5) Did ACM err in determining that Petitioner’s free speech rights under Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights were not violated? 6) Was the warrant issued for Petitioner’s arrest invalid based on the contents of the warrant affidavit, which show no crime was committed? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 198, Sept. Term, 2022 (unreported) | |
020 | 2023 | Turenne | State | 2023-10-23 | 2024-02-06 | Criminal Law – Is the evidence insufficient to sustain the child pornography convictions under Md. Code Criminal Law Article (“CL”) §§ 11-207(a)(1) and -208(b) and child sex abuse convictions under CL § 3-602(b)? (A) What is the appropriate test to determine whether an image constitutes “lascivious exhibition of the genitals” under the child pornography statutes? (B) What role, if any, does evidence of possession of adult pornography play in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 714, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] | |
021 | 2023 | Mason | State | 2023-10-23 | 2024-02-06 | Criminal Law – 1) Did ACM err in ruling that a mistrial was not required simply by virtue of the inadvertent nature of the discovery error? 2) Is “error correction” a legitimate reason to allow previously undisclosed evidence into trial, thereby excusing a discovery violation, where the new evidence contradicts information disclosed during discovery and previously relied on by the defense at trial? 3) Did the courts below abuse their discretion by finding no prejudice warranting a mistrial or curative instruction, where during discovery the State produced a blank Strangulation Supplement documenting no injuries to the complaining witness that was relied on by defense counsel at trial, and where surprise testimony revealed that the disclosed Supplement was erroneous and that the original Strangulation Supplement – which was not produced during discovery – did document injuries? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1198, Sept. Term, 2022 [Opinion] |