SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2020
Monday, February 1, 2021:
AG No. 3 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Allan Fineblum
Attorneys for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Irwin R. Kramer
Misc. No. 9 Benjamin Caleb Trott v. State of Maryland
Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Question: Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress?
Attorney for Appellant: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Appellee: Derek Simmonsen
No. 33 Keith Merryman and Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 146 v. University of Baltimore
Issues – Administrative Law – 1) Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have jurisdiction when the parties have contractually agreed to submit grievances regarding the interpretation of their collective bargaining agreement to the Office for adjudication? 2) Did CSA err in finding that because the remedy would involve awarding additional leave hours, the grievance constituted a complaint pertaining to the “general level of fringe benefits” prohibited by Md. Code §13-201(c) of the Education Article?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kieran P. Dowdy
Attorney for Respondent: Christopher B. Lord
Thursday, February 4, 2021:
No. 36 Robert F. Cherry, Jr., et al v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City
Issues – Municipal Codes – 1) Did the trial court err in its reliance on Appellee’s actuarial expert who, in calculating breach of contract damages, failed to estimate what retirement benefit increases would have been owed by implementing the statutory plan contract as written and applied for decades? 2) Did the trial court err in computing breach of contract damages when it misinterpreted the actuarial funding required under Appellee’s statutory pension contract? 3) Did the trial court err in holding that Appellee did not breach its statutory pension contract with the active employee members of the retirement plan by the passage of Baltimore City Ordinance 10-306, which reduced promised pension benefits?
Attorneys for Appellant: Charles O. Monk, II and Robert D. Klausner
Attorneys for Appellee: James P. Ulwick and Jean E. Lewis
Misc. No. 8 In re: Anthony D. Walker and Denicia P. Walker
Certified Question from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland
Question: Can a community association’s lien perfected under the Maryland Contract Lien Act, Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. §§ 14-201 et seq., secure unpaid damages, costs of collection, late charges, and attorney’s fees arising under the association’s governing documents that accrue subsequent to the recordation of the lien?
Attorney for Appellant: Timothy J. Larsen
Attorney for Appellee: David B. Mintz
No. 32 Neal Lawrence, IV v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Is wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about one’s person a strict liability crime?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian M. Saccenti
Attorney for Respondent: Conor M. McCarthy
Friday, February 5, 2021:
No. 37 State of Maryland v. Sean Morris
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does the trial court have discretion to admit testimony regarding a witness’ fear in the absence of a prior inconsistent statement by that witness? 2) If the trial court has that discretion, does the trial court have the discretion to admit testimony regarding the witness’ fear on direct examination in an appropriate case? 3) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in admitting brief testimony regarding fear, which made no mention of Respondent, during the direct examination of two witnesses?
Attorney for Petitioner: Gary E. O'Connor
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey M. Ross
No. 42 Toni Tengeres v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s timely Motion to Reinstate, where good cause was shown, pursuant to the liberal standard for reinstatement in Md. Rule 7-112? 2) Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s due process rights by dismissing her de novo appeal for failure to appear at a status conference, where no critical issues would be decided?
Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas E. Robins
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin A. Harris
After February 5, 2021, the Court will recess until March 5, 2021.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
Pursuant to the October 2, 2020 Second 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, and the December 16, 2020 Second Administrative Order on Remote Oral Arguments, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.