SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2020
Thursday, October 29, 2020:
AG No. 63 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson
Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Craig S. Brodsky
No. 10 Ashley Hector, et al. v. Bank of New York Mellon
Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) As a matter of first impression, can a business Trust be individually liable for compliance with the Baltimore City Housing Code, pursuant to an interpretation of Estates & Trusts Art. §14.5-908? 2) Did CSA err in carving out an exception to Allen v. Dackman, 413 Md. 132 (2010), for a bank that was the Trustee of a mortgage-backed security, and that foreclosed on an old deteriorated property in Baltimore and then purchases said property at auction? 3) May a Bank acting as Trustee which owned a rental property face liability based upon the local Housing Code, or do the Bank's own internal documents and agreements decide the scope of liability?
Attorney for Petitioner: Alan J. Mensh
Attorneys for Respondent: Ava E. Lias-Booker and Melissa O. Martinez
No. 11 Jose Canales-Yanez v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a Brady violation occurs during a bench trial, is the test for materiality satisfied simply by the judge’s determination that his verdict would not have changed had the evidence not been suppressed unless such a conclusion would be patently unreasonable, without giving due consideration to the effect of the suppression of evidence on the defense case preparation and trial strategy? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the Brady violation did not undermine confidence in the verdict?
Attorney for Petitioner: Nancy S. Forster
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin A. Harris
Friday, October 30, 2020:
No. 8 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. ProVen Management, Inc.
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err when it held that including an assertion of procedural error in a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision turns such a petition, in substance, into a request for a writ of common law mandamus under Murrell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 376 Md. 170 (2003)? 2) Did CSA err when it held that a petition for judicial review that sought reversal of an administrative decision was, in substance, in the nature of a mandamus action merely because the administrative hearing and administrative decision were alleged to have been performed in a procedurally inadequate manner?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Redmond
Attorney for Respondent: Joseph C. Kovars
Misc. No. 1 United Bank v. Richard Buckingham, et al.
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Questions: (1) Whether the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act, see Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 15-201 et seq., which generally applies to “conveyances” made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, reaches a change in life insurance beneficiary, particularly in light of Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 16-111(d)? (2) Whether Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 15-102 grants a guardian of property the authority to change the beneficiaries of life insurance policies?
Attorney for Appellant: Blake Frieman
Attorney for Appellee: Charles R. Claxton
Thursday, November 5, 2020:
AG No. 6 (2019 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Sperling
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Craig S. Brodsky
No. 13 State of Maryland v. Nathan Joseph Johnson
Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider and remand because the trial court is entitled to reconfigure the sentencing package to account for the reversal of Respondent’s involuntary manslaughter conviction regardless of the reason for reversal?
Attorney for Petitioner: Carrie J. Williams
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew W. Lachman
No. 7 Bruce Uthus v. Valley Mill Camp, Inc.
Issue – Real Property – Can a person claiming the right to possession against a person in actual peaceable possession of real property bring an action in circuit court for common law trespass to recover possession of the property, when the Maryland legislature has committed such actions for possession to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the district court?
Attorney for Petitioner: Joseph D. Allen
Attorney for Respondent: J. Bradford McCullough
Friday, November 6, 2020:
No. 9 Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Department of Finance of Baltimore City
Issues – Constitutional Law– 1) Is the operation of billboards protected by the First Amendment, thereby subjecting its taxation to heightened scrutiny? 2) Does the Tax single out a single platform for speech or a small group of speakers, thereby subjecting it to heightened scrutiny?
Attorney for Petitioner: Virginia A. Seitz
Attorney for Respondent: Rachel A. Simmonsen
No. 12 State of Maryland v. Karen Campbell McGagh
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when, citing First Amendment and policy-based concerns, it applied a non-deferential, de novo standard of review to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Respondent’s convictions for perjury and false statement? 2) Did CSA err in finding the evidence insufficient to show willful and knowing falsity, and in finding that one witness’s testimony corroborated by surveillance video was insufficient to satisfy the “two-witness rule” for perjury? 3) Was the evidence legally insufficient to support Respondent’s convictions for perjury and/or false statement because the evidence failed to show that the statements were material?
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew H. Costinett
Attorney for Respondent: Peter F. Rose
After November 6, 2020, the Court will recess until December 3, 2020.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
Pursuant to the June 3, 2020 Amended Administrative Order on the Progressive Resumption of Full Function of Judiciary Operations Previously Restricted Due to the COVID-19 Emergency and the June 18, 2018 Administrative order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.