PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2022
Denied/Dismissed October 4, 2022
Amick, Michael Earl v. State - Pet. Docket No. 185
Cameron v. Henlon - Pet. Docket No. 113
Carter v. Corizon Health - Pet. Docket No. 112
Coleman, Jerez v. State - Pet. Docket No. 168
Estate of Dorsey v. Kaplan Higher Ed. - Pet. Docket No. 179
Ferensic v. Hawkins - Pet. Docket No. 146
Fisher v. Fisher - Pet. Docket No. 182
Godwin, Shawn Lamont, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 169
Goodwin v. Jackson - Pet. Docket No. 26
Hildredth v. Keehn - Pet. Docket No. 122
Hodge v. Ward - Pet. Docket No. 176
In re: A.W. - Pet. Docket No. 173
Jamison v. Access World (USA) - Pet. Docket No. 164
Johnson, Alonta B. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 186
Johnson, Steven M. v. Sec'y, Dept. of Pub. Safety & Corr. Services - Pet. Docket No. 165
Little, William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 191
Morris v. Peters - Pet. Docket No. 114
MTGLQ Investors v. Trusty - Pet. Docket No. 124
Ojomu v. Oak Springs Townhouse Ass'n - Pet. Docket No. 183
Paylor v. Hickory TSF - Pet. Docket No. 180
Ragone, John Thomas, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 111
Ransom v. Md. Historical Trust - Pet. Docket No. 161
Roberts v. Parker - Pet. Docket No. 67
Roundtable Wellness v. LaPrade Md. Medical Cannabis Comm'n - Pet. Docket No. 151
Singleton, Al Dwayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 177
Solum v. Royal Plus - Pet. Docket No. 156
Want v. Jones - Pet. Docket No. 166
Young v. Wilkins El - Pet. Docket No. 181
Granted October 21, 2022
John Matthew Woodlin v. State of Maryland – Case No. 22, September Term, 2022
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As a matter of first impression, under Md. Code §10-923 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”), which permits the admission in certain circumstances of prior sexually assaultive behavior in prosecutions for child sexual offenses, what factors must a trial court consider in determining whether the probative value of that prior sexually assaultive behavior is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and, specifically, is the similarity or dissimilarity between the two offenses one of those factors? 2) As a matter of first impression, how should trial courts apply these factors, including the similarity or dissimilarity between the two offenses, in determining whether the probative value of the prior sexually assaultive behavior is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as required by CJP §10-923(3)(4)? 3) As a matter of first impression, if the trial court has determined that the probative value of the prior sexually assaultive behavior is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, how much of the factual details including the dissimilarities between the past and present offenses should be admitted at trial and what factors should be considered in making that determination? 4) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Petitioner’s ten-year old sexually abusive behavior on an adult male which was substantially dissimilar from the child abuse for which he was on trial?
Prince George's County Council, et al. v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George's County, et al. – Case No. 23, September Term, 2022
Issues – Land Use – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a former property use as a zoning subcategory was not “reasonable and based upon public policy” and therefore violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Land Use Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that it was not a reasonable public policy to use the zoning ordinance to seek to discontinue a non-conforming use when Maryland public policy favors their discontinuation? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a local legislative body may not use the zoning ordinance to incentivize closure of airports, and other activities closely regulated by the State? 4) Did CSA err by establishing a standard of review that effectively eliminated the presumption of correctness when a text amendment to a zoning ordinance is adopted? 5) Did CSA err in holding that Council Bill CB-17-2019 violated the uniformity clause under the Regional District Act?
Denied/Dismissed October 25, 2022
Akers, Martha A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 96
Baldwin, Hugh Hartman v. State - Pet. Docket No. 203
Beasley v. Adams - Pet. Docket No. 171
Bennett v. The Donaldson Group - Pet. Docket No. 212
Briddell v. Md. State Retirement & Pension System - Pet. Docket No. 189
Calhoun-El, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 209
Carannante v. Anne Arundel Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 213
Chandler v. Goldring - Pet. Docket No. 162
Chapman, Courtney v. State - Pet. Docket No. 178
Fishes Dishes v. 1416 Shoemaker, LLC - Pet. Docket No. 153
Fishes Dishes v. 1416 Shoemaker, LLC - Pet. Docket No. 154
Gravley, Steven, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 184
Gross v. Ward - Pet. Docket No. 202
Hoerner, Edwin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 204
Johnson v. Harn - Pet. Docket No. 414 (2021 T.)
Kirksey v. PHH Mortgage Corp. - Pet. Docket No. 175
McDowell, Stephen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 190
Miller, Niajul v. State - Pet. Docket No. 207
Moise v. Fidler - Pet. Docket No. 163
Okusami v. Cullen - Pet. Docket No. 188
Phelps v. Watkins - Pet. Docket No. 170
Reimundo, Douglas Caishpal v. State - Pet. Docket No. 187
Seck, Aziz N. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 200
Talib, Sharif v. State - Pet. Docket No. 210
Terry, Christopher v. State - Pet. Docket No. 241
Thompson v. Bogert - Pet. Docket No. 198
Williams, Leslie Eugene v. State - Pet. Docket No. 397 (2019 T.)
Wilson, Gregory D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 211
Wozar v. Wozar - Pet. Docket No. 205