Petitions for Writ of Certiorari - October 2018

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2018

 

 

Granted October 2, 2018

D.L. v. Sheppard Pratt Health System, Inc., et al. - Case No. 38, September Term, 2018

Issues – 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?

Patricia Moore v. Fernwood Mobile Home Park, Inc. - Case No. 39, September Term, 2018

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Should the appeal of a District Court judgment in a tenant holding over case have been on the record? 2) Is a judgment in favor of an entity that does not exist valid or a nullity? 3) Did the circuit court on de novo appeal make other significant errors of law?

 

 

Granted October 9, 2018

Lawrence R. Carver v. RBS Citizens, N.A., et al  - Case No. 45, September Term, 2018

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

Cushman & Wakefield of Maryland, Inc., et al. v. DRV Greentec, LLC - Case No. 42, September Term, 2018

Issues – 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?

Michelle Gallagher v. Mercy Medical Center, Inc. - Case No. 44, September Term, 2018

Issues – 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?

Travis Howell v. State of Maryland - Case No. 43, September Term, 2018

Issues – 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?

In re: S.K. - Case No. 41, September Term, 2018

Issues – 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”?

LVNV Funding LLC v. Larry Finch, et al. - Case No. 46, September Term, 2018

Issues – 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?

State of Maryland v. Harry Malik Robertson - Case No. 40, September Term, 2018

Issues – 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?

 

 

Granted October 17, 2018

Byron A. Bowie v. State of Maryland  - Case No. 49, September Term, 2018

Jafet L. Hernandez v. State of Maryland  - Case No. 48, September Term, 2018

Gordon Pack v. State of Maryland  - Case No. 49, September Term, 2018