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
005
2021 State Galicia 2021-04-09 2021-09-13
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-06-27
[Opinion]
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)
014
2021 Amaya DGS Construction 2021-06-22 2021-11-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-07-13
[Opinion]

Please note: This case and No. 17 share one opinion.
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.
2022-07-13
[Opinion]

Please note: This case and No. 14 share one opinion.
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)
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
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??
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)
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)
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)
032
2021 Gross State 2021-09-13 2022-02-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  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
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-07-28
[Opinion]
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]
029
2021 Malvo State 2021-08-25 2022-02-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  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)
040
2021 Wadsworth Sharma 2021-10-12 2022-02-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2022-07-15
[Opinion]
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]
046
2021 Richardson State 2021-11-10 2022-03-03
[Oral Arguments]
  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]
011 Misc.
2021 Assanah-Carroll Law Offices of Edward J. Maher   2022-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
2022-07-28
[Opinion]
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?
063
2021 Prince George's Cnty. Thurston 2022-02-11 2022-03-04
[Oral Arguments]
2022-07-13
[Opinion]

2022-03-07
[PC Order]
Issue – Local Codes – Is a Resolution, having the force and effect of law, a valid measure to adopt a decennial County Council Redistricting Plan?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1865, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
043
2021 Frankel Deane 2021-11-10 2022-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
  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 Appeals, No. 218, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
044
2021 Spevak Montgomery Cnty. 2021-11-10 2022-03-07
[Oral Arguments]
  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]
042
2021 Williams Dimensions Health Corp. 2021-11-10 2022-03-08
[Oral Arguments]
2022-07-28
[Opinion]
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)
001 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Proctor   2022-03-08
[Oral Arguments]

 
2022-07-25
[Opinion]

2022-03-09
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
048
2021 Admin. Off. of Courts Abell Fnd. 2021-12-08 2022-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
2022-07-28
[Opinon]
Maryland Rules – Did CSA misinterpret the administrative-record exemption of Maryland Rule 16-905(f)(3)(B)(i), which directs a custodian of judicial records to deny inspection of an administrative record “prepared by or for a judge” that is “purely administrative in nature but not a local rule, policy, or directive” and is “not filed with the clerk and not required to be filed with the clerk,” when CSA concluded that the exemption did not apply to a mainframe edit table correlating each District Court judge with an alphanumeric code and ordered disclosure of the mainframe edit table?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1955, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
047
2021 CX Reinsurance Co. Johnson 2021-12-08 2022-04-04
[Oral Arguments]
  Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in refusing to interpret insurance policies like other contracts, concluding that “sound public policy dictates that liability insurance policies should be construed to protect injured tort claimants” notwithstanding their terms? 2) Did CSA err in holding that all claimants who have asserted or will assert claims are intended beneficiaries of insurance policies, with vested interests in those policies from the date of their alleged injuries, and have the same rights under those policies as claimants who have obtained judgments or entered into settlements? 3) Did CSA err in holding that an insured and its insurer cannot resolve litigation by entering a settlement, in good faith, that modifies or reduces insurance coverage without the consent of all current and future tort claimants?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 691, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
056
2021 State Bustillo 2022-01-11 2022-04-08
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in holding that a trial court’s failure to comply with Maryland Rule 4-346(a) when imposing a period of probation results in an “illegal sentence” within the contemplation of Maryland Rule 4-345(a)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2614, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
025 Misc.
2021 Petition of Fisher, et al.     2022-04-13
[Oral Arguments]
2022-04-13
[Order]
Petition of Mark N. Fisher, Nicholaus R. Kipke, and Kathryn Szeliga

In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State

 
026 Misc.
2021 Petition of Thiam, et al.     2022-04-13
[Oral Arguments]
2022-04-13
[Order]
Petition of Brenda Thiam, Wayne Hartman, and Patricia Shoemaker

In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State

 
027 Misc.
2021 Petition of Wilson     2022-04-13
[Oral Arguments]
2022-04-13
[Order]
Petition of Seth Edward Wilson

In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State

 
062
2021 Garcia State 2022-02-09 2022-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – 1) Is it legally possible to be an accessory before the fact to non-premeditated intent to kill murder? 2) Must a conviction be vacated if the jury considered a legally impossible theory of liability?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2355, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
053
2021 Chesapeake Bay Found. CREG Westport I 2022-01-11 2022-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Environmental Law – 1) Do the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act require an opportunity for direct appeal of an approved forest conservation plan? 2) Does the approval of a forest conservation plan constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1063, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
057
2021 Hancock Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. 2022-01-11 2022-05-09
[Oral Arguments]
  Torts – 1) Does an employer’s duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring an independent contractor extend to employees of the independent contractor? 2) When a contractor recognizes dangerous job site conditions, does the contractor owe a duty to employees of a co-contractor to identify, warn against, or mitigate the hazard?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 440, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
072 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Maiden   2022-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
 
2022-07-28
[Opinion]

2022-05-11
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
055
2021 Upper Marlboro Prince George's Cnty. Cncl. 2022-01-11 2022-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
2022-08-01
[Opinion]
Land Use – 1) Was CR-72-2019 a final appealable decision that had to be challenged within 30 days of finality as required by Md. Code § 22-407 of the Land Use Article? 2) Was Petitioner’s appeal of CR-98-2019 sufficient to challenge the deficiencies in CR-72-2019? 3) Was the decision of the County Council sitting as the District Council deficient in setting for the purpose and scope of the minor amendment in the initiating resolution (CR-72-2019) as required by Section 27-642 of the Prince George’s County Code?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 801, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
052
2021 Buarque de Macedo Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford 2022-01-11 2022-05-10
[Oral Arguments]
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Does Md. Code § 5-806 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article render the household exclusion clause in an umbrella policy void, up to the limits of motor vehicle liability coverage, as to motor vehicle personal injury or wrongful death claims of unemancipated children or estates of such children against their parent?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1619, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
061
2021 Smith State 2022-02-09 2022-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
  Criminal Law – In a reported case of first impression, did CSA wrongly hold that the courtroom bailiff’s face mask depicting the ‘thin blue line’ was not inherently prejudicial to Petitioner?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1273, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
051
2021 Thornton Mellon Frederick Cnty. Sheriff 2021-12-08 2022-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
2022-07-22
[Opinion]
Real Property – 1) Do sheriffs who are commanded to enforce writs of possession issued in a tax sale proceeding have the authority to adopt and impose on tax sale purchasers a “Mover Policy,” which policy requires a tax sale purchaser to provide, at the time of the writ of possession, a crew of movers and moving equipment sufficient to remove the prior owner’s personal property that remains inside the property? 2) Do sheriffs who are commanded to enforce writs of possession issued in a tax sale proceeding have the authority to adopt and impose on tax sale purchasers a “Weather Policy,” which policy allows sheriffs to decline to serve a writ of possession during inclement weather? 3) Where the General Assembly has codified statutes governing the eviction process in tax sale proceedings, do sheriffs have the “fairly-implied power” to enact their own policies concerning the eviction process? 4) Did CSA err in holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the content of the policies adopted by sheriffs?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2224, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
054
2021 Rainey State 2022-01-11 2022-06-01
[Oral Arguments]
 
  Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, can a suspect’s change in appearance (in this case, a change in hairstyle) at some point between the time of the crime and the time of his arrest, support a destruction-of-evidence jury instruction? 2) Under the four-inference test adopted in Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 (2006), consciousness-of-guilt jury instructions may not be given unless evidence supports all four of the necessary inferences. As a matter of first impression, is a trial judge required to consider the four inferences on the record before giving a consciousness-of-guilt jury instruction, here a destruction-of-evidence instruction? 3) Even if the trial court is not required to state its reasoning regarding the four inferences on the record: (a) was it improper to give the instruction in this case where the evidence did not support the four inferences because petitioner had not been charged or arrested at the time of his haircut and there was no evidence that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation, and (b) is reversal required where there is no indication in the record that the trial court considered the four Thompson inferences? 4) Did CSA err in holding that although “it is preferable, in all cases in which a defendant has allegedly changed his appearance in order to avoid identification, to employ a custom instruction that focuses on the change of appearance as potential evidence of consciousness of guilt,” the giving of the destruction-of-evidence instruction was harmless in this case because a different modified instruction that does not include the language “You have heard evidence that the defendant destroyed evidence” could have been given but was not? 5) Was giving the destruction-of-evidence jury instruction harmless error where the pattern instruction was not modified, the prosecutor relied on the instruction in closing argument, the jury asked multiple questions during deliberations regarding changes in Petitioner’s appearance, and significant evidence pointed to the guilt of another party?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3094, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
007 AG
2021 Attorney Grievance White   2022-06-02
[Oral Arguments]
 
2022-06-06
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
060
2021 In Re: T.K.   2022-02-09 2022-06-02
[Oral Arguments]
2022-07-28
[Opinion]
Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As a matter of first impression, under the discretionary language of Md. Code § 3-819(e) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings (“CJP”) article, which provides that the “court may award custody to the other parent” after sustaining petition allegations against only one parent and before dismissing the case, what standards govern this exercise of discretion and what, if any, process must be afforded to the custodial parent prior to a transfer of full legal and physical custody of the child to the noncustodial parent? 2) When determining whether to transfer custody of a child to a noncustodial parent under CJP §3-819(e) before dismissing the case, does the best-interests-of-the-child standard apply and what facts or factors must the court consider in making a best interests determination? 3) When requested, is a custodial parent entitled to a contested dispositional hearing where they can present evidence concerning whether it is in the child’s best interest to transfer full custody to the noncustodial parent under CJP §3-819(e) or may a juvenile court transfer full of custody of the child based solely on the sustained petition allegations and conflicting proffers? 4) Does In re R.S., 470 Md. 380 (2020), compel a juvenile court, once petition allegations have been sustained against a custodial parent only, to award full custody of a child to the noncustodial parent over the objection and request for custody of the custodial parent and despite the discretionary language in CJP §3-819(e)? 5) Was the evidence sufficient to transfer full custody of T.K. from mother, his custodial parent since birth and throughout the CINA case to his out-of-state, noncustodial father under the findings that mother agreed to and where mother also proffered that she had witnesses available to testify to facts supporting that father was not able to provide proper care to T.K. and that it was not in T.K.’s best interest to be transferred to father’s custody?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 292, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported)
006
2022 Elsberry Stanley Martin Companies 2022-05-09 2022-09-08   Real Property – 1) May a court rely on legislative history unrelated to the specific statutory text at issue to override the consumer protections granted in the plain language and tabulation of Md. Code § 14-117(a)(3) of the Real Property (“RP”) Article, an unambiguous remedial statute? 2) Did CSA violate Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution by using the title of the bill “Prince George’s County – Deferred Water and Sewer Charges Homeowner Disclosure Act of 2014” to contradict the plain language of RP § 14-117(a)(3)(ii)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 172, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported)
002
2022 Ahmad Ahmad & Ahmad Revocable Trust 2022-04-25 2022-09-08   Estates & Trusts – 1) Can the statute of limitations operate to adversely affect a substantive right of a party acquired under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction? 2) Can a legal nullity start the running of the statute of limitations? 3) Can a trust void ab initio and made in violation of law benefit from a statute of limitations defense?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 634, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
003
2022 Fussa Warden 2022-04-25 2022-09-08   Correctional Services – Has Petitioner been “previously convicted” pursuant to Md. Code § 3-702 of the Correctional Services Article, where the conviction for the first offense was imposed during the same criminal proceeding as the conviction for which he is denied diminution of confinement credit and, if not, is Petitioner being illegally detained and entitled to immediate release?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1234, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
005
2022 Access Funding Linton 2022-04-25 2022-09-09   Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must determine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties when Respondents did not challenge the validity or enforceability of the underlying agreements containing the arbitration clauses in their complaint? 2) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must decide the existence of an arbitration agreement when well-established Federal and Maryland law mandates that the arbitrator and not the court decides the issue of arbitrability when Respondents executed agreements containing arbitration clauses that expressly stated the arbitrator shall decide the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute, and Respondents have only alleged fraud and misrepresentation as to the agreements as a whole and not with respect to the arbitration clause separately and specifically?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1398, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
001 Misc.
2022 Tapestry, Inc. Factory Mutual Insurance   2022-09-09   Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Question: When a first-party, all-risk property insurance policy covers “all risks of physical loss or damage” to insured property from any cause unless excluded, is coverage triggered when a toxic, noxious, or hazardous substance – such as Coronavirus or COVID-19 - that is physically present in the indoor air of that property damages the property or causes loss, either in whole or in part, of the functional use of the property?
007
2022 Comptroller FC-GEN Operations Investments 2022-05-09 2022-09-09   Tax-General – 1) Should this Court overrule recent decisions and hold that on judicial review of a decision in a tax case, the agency owed deference in the interpretation and application of tax law is the Comptroller and not the Tax Court? 2) Did the Tax Court and CSA err in finding that estimated tax remittances are “deposits,” not statutorily required “payments,” when Maryland’s doctrine of conformity requires the application of federal law to Md. Code § 13-1104(c) of the Tax-General Article, and federal law considers them payments? 3) When properly applied, do Maryland’s voluntary payment rule and the statutory framework for refunds of estimated taxes found in found in Title 13 of the Tax-General Article require denying FC-GEN’s claim, which it improperly submitted for itself, under the law?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 946, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
001
2022 Dzurec Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Calvert Cnty. 2022-03-25 2022-09-12   Local Government – 1) If a county commissioner is voting to enact a Comprehensive Plan in violation of the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance, is that vote ultra vires? 2) Does the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance include an implied cause of action for citizens with standing?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 29, Sept. Term, 2021 (unreported)
064
2021 McGhee State 2022-03-08 2022-09-12   Criminal Law – 1) Do Charles v. State, 414 Md. 726 (2010), Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011), which concern the propriety of CSI-effect voir dire questions and jury instructions, apply to cases that became final before those decisions issued? 2) Did Petitioner’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel when at Petitioner’s 2007 trial, she failed to object to a CSI-effect voir dire question?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 638, Sept. Term, 2020 (unreported)
004
2022 Crawford Cnty. Cncl. of Prince George's Cnty. 2022-04-25 2022-09-13   Land Use – Is an Amazon Last Mile Hub a “warehouse” and, therefore, permitted by right at the Subject Property?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2050, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
009
2022 United Parcel Service Strothers 2022-05-09 2022-09-13   Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of Md. Code § 9-504 of the Labor & Employment (“LE”) Article, that “definite proof” applies to the quality of evidence presented, and not to the standard of evidence presented when the same quality of evidence is required in all claims presented before the Workers’ Compensation Commission? 2) Did CSA err when it found that the Respondent met his burden of production when producing medical evidence to a preponderance of the evidence standard, a standard to which all other claims submitted before the Workers’ Compensation Commission must meet? 3) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of LE § 9-504, that “immediate operation is needed” applies to the recommendation for surgery and not the timing of the surgery, finding 59 days to be “immediate”?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 743, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]
040 AG
2021 Attorney Grievance Taniform   2022-10-03   Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
014
2022 Carver State 2022-07-08 2022-10-03   Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, when evaluating newly discovered evidence in an actual-innocence proceeding, must a court consider the new evidence and the evidence admitted at trial collectively with evidence that was available to the defense but not offered at trial, and/or offered but excluded, where the available evidence was made relevant and admissible by the newly discovered evidence? 2) Where Joseph Kopera was the sole firearms expert at trial, is the contrary opinion of a non-fraudulent firearms expert, obtained after the revelation of Kopera’s fraud, newly discovered evidence? 3) Did the lower courts err by failing to consider the cumulative impact of separate but related categories of newly discovered evidence as required by Faulkner v. State, 468 Md. 418 (2020)? 4) Did the lower court err by denying the petition for writ of actual innocence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2042, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
012
 
013
2022 Montgomery Park Dept. of General Services 2022-06-03 2022-10-03   State Finance & Procurement – 1) Is it arbitrary or capricious for a procurement officer to cancel the proposed award of a procurement contract without making independent “written findings” required by Maryland law to support that decision, and instead relying on someone else’s findings that were not supported by the administrative record? 2) Did Petitioner have standing to challenge the unlawful award of a sole source contract to a different applicant?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 35 & 48, Sept. Term, 2021 [Opinion]
047 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Malone   2022-10-04   Attorney disciplinary matter.
010
2022 Abruquah State 2022-06-03 2022-10-04   Criminal Law – Is firearm identification methodology sufficiently reliable to allow an examiner to identify a specific firearm as the source of a questioned bullet or casing, or should the examiner be permitted to testify, at most, that a firearm cannot be excluded as the source of the questioned projectile?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1395, Sept. Term, 2021 (pending)
008
2022 Belton State 2022-05-09 2022-10-04   Constitutional Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does a criminal defendant’s right to a fair and impartial judge and the appearance of a fair and impartial judge extend to appellate proceedings? 2) Does dicta in CSA’s reported opinion violate Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 3) Did CSA err in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Recall and Reconsider Reported Opinion where the opinion denies Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial judges and the appearance of fair and impartial judges? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of Petitioner’s testimony regarding the victim’s statement, “This is my block,” which was critical to Petitioner’s self-defense and defense-of-others defenses, constituted harmless error?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 720, Sept. Term, 2020 [Opinion]