PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2023
Granted June 17, 2024
Christopher Nguyen v. State of Maryland – Case No. 13, September Term, 2024 (and conditional cross-petition)
Issues – Criminal Law – Petition: 1) Does Maryland common law impose on police officers a general “duty to protect,” a breach of which is enforceable in a criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment or other crimes of omission, and if so, is the duty triggered when one suspect assaults another suspect in an officer’s presence? 2) If Petitioner had a “duty to protect,” was the testimony of other officers that they would have separated or stood between the two suspects legally sufficient to prove that Petitioner, by taking neither action, grossly departed from the standard of conduct that a reasonable, similarly situated police officer would have observed?
Conditional Cross-Petition: 3) If the “special relationship” requirement extends to criminal cases involving a police officer-defendant accused of committing reckless endangerment by omission, did the ACM err in concluding that no “special relationship” existed between Petitioner and one of the suspects?
Mark Zukowski, et al. v. Anne Arundel County – Case No. 14, September Term, 2024
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Did the General Assembly intend to offset compensation or benefits to be paid directly to claimants when it adopted Md. Code, Labor & Employment Art. § 9-610?
In re: The Estate of Michael Gerard Schappell – Case No. 15, September Term, 2024
Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did ACM err by rejecting Maryland’s longstanding requirement of an agreement to adopt as an element of equitable adoption, instead replacing it with a case-by-case examination of “fairness” factors?
In the Matter of Cindy Isely, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bonnie Campbell – Case No. 16, September Term, 2024
Issue – Family Law – Does the reach of Federal preemption extend such that a former spouse is without rights to enforce a contract related to already distributed retirement proceeds from a federal Thrift Savings Plan; or does Maryland follow the reasoning and interpretation set forth in Andochick v. Byrd, 709 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2013), allowing a former spouse to enforce a contract right regarding already distributed retirement proceeds to effectuate the intention of the parties?
In the Matter of the Petition of Featherfall Restoration LLC – Case No. 17, September Term, 2024
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Does the standard insurance policy clause prohibiting assignment of “this policy” absent insurer consent prohibit the insured from assigning a post-loss claim benefit under the policy without its consent? 2) Did the lower courts err in affording deference to and affirming the ruling of law by the Maryland Insurance Administration (“MIA”) that anti-assignment clauses in property insurance policies preclude post-loss assignments of claims, instead of following this Court’s precedents upholding post-loss claim assignments in the face of anti-assignment clauses? 3) Did the lower courts err in affirming the MIA’s decision that Petitioner, as an assignee of insurance benefits from the insurer, was not a “claimant” or “aggrieved” with standing to challenge the insurer’s unfair claims settlement practices with respect to the claim assigned? 4) Should the trial court have issued a declaratory judgment that the assignment of claim benefits at issue did not violate the contractual provision that “assignment of this policy will not be valid unless we give our written consent” instead of deferring to the agency’s interpretation of Maryland contract law? (Note: The SCM granted a writ of cert only as to Petitioner’s questions 2, 4, 5, and 6.)
Timothy Leiweke, et al. v. Craig Bernstein – Case No. 18, September Term, 2024
Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Under Md. Rule 2-403, which instructs a court to “enter any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”, should a court quash a subpoena for a high-ranking corporate executive when the executive has carried the burden to demonstrate that the information is available through less intrusive means?
Denied/Dismissed June 18, 2024
Bradford, Edgar C. v. State – Pet. No. 52 *
Burbage v. Zaykoski – Pet. No. 77 *
Butler, Courtney v. State – Pet. No. 79 *
Campbell v. Wynn – Pet. No. 80 *
Cicada Investments v. Harbour Portfolio VII – Pet. No. 51 *
Grant, Corey Malik v. State – Pet. No. 74 *
Green, Terence Anthony William, Jr. v. State – Pet. No. 49 *
Hammock, Terrence Edward v. State – Pet. No. 69 *
Hannah, Corey v. State – Pet. No. 48 *
Harding, Walter v. State – Pet. No. 62 *
Hawkins, Gregory Lamont v. State – Pet. No. 42 *
Hughes, Winston Christopher v. State – Pet. No. 65 *
Hunter, Mike v. State – Pet. No. 56 *
In re: Estate of Walters – Pet. No. 50 *
In the Matter of Floyd – Pet. No. 40 *
In the Matter of Red Maple Place Ltd. P’ship – Pet. No. 81 *
In the Matter of Savoy – Pet. No. 72 *
Inko-Tariah v. Okereke – Pet. No. 43 *
Kamara v. Kamara – Pet. No. 362
Lewis, Grant v. State – Pet. No. 61 *
Mailloux, Tyler Allen v. State – Pet. No. 75 *
Miller v. Miller – Pet. No. 88 *
Mirabile v. Leiter – Pet. No. 71 *
Moses v. Montgomery College Bd. Of Trustees – Pet. No. 44 *
Perez v. Around the Clark Trucking – Pet. No. 68 *
Robellard, James Matthew v. State – Pet. No. 70 *
Rosales, Jose v. State – Pet. No. 78 *
Sanders v. Md. Dept. of Health – Pet. No. 39*
Sanusi v. Sanusi – Pet. No. 377
Sherwood v. Old Republic National Title Ins. Co. – Pet. No. 66 *
Tate v. Moore – Pet. No. 27 *
Thurston, Richard A. v. State – Pet. No. 55 *
Wesley v. Brightview Landscapes – Pet. No. 361
Williams v. Adams – Pet. No. 363
* September Term, 2024