PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2024
Granted March 21, 2025
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Sanjeev Varghese – Case No. 3, September Term, 2025
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err when it held that governmental immunity for negligent infrastructure design decisions can be overcome by prior notice to the government that the design decision created a danger? 2) Did ACM’s decision that Maryland courts can adjudicate what infrastructure designs local governments should use violate the prohibition against the judicial branch assuming any of the duties of the other branches found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 3) Did ACM err when it held that Petitioner enjoyed neither common law governmental immunity nor statutory immunity under the Maryland Recreational Use Statute (§§ 5-1101 through 5-1109 of the Natural Resources Article)?
In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City – Case No. 4, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account?
In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City – Case No. 5, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account?
In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City – Case No. 6, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court to conduct an individualized analysis when the undisputed record establishes as a matter of law that there is no particularized need to disclose Petitioners’ identities?
In re: Criminal Investigation No. CID 18-2673 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City – Case No. 7, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland’s attorney general have the constitutional authority to publish a report based on secret grand jury information that intentionally identifies uncharged individuals for the purpose of holding them to public account? 2) Does the state constitution authorize the governor to “direct” the attorney general to investigate and prosecute any “crimes of exploitation” for an unlimited time, and without accounting for the competing authority of the state’s attorneys and the General Assembly? 3) Did this Court’s creation in 1989 of a balancing test for release of secret grand jury information overrule its earlier authority categorically prohibiting a prosecutor from releasing information about uncharged individuals to hold them to public account? 4) Did ACM err by remanding the case to the trial court for reconsideration rather than ordering that judgment be entered in Petitioner’s favor?
Diandre Goodrich v. State of Maryland – Case No. 8, September Term, 2025
Issue – Constitutional Law – Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s request for self-representation in violation of his constitutional rights and Maryland Rule 4-215?
Engage Armament LLC, et al. v. Montgomery County Maryland – Case No. 9, September Term, 2025
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did the trial court correctly find that Maryland’s comprehensive system of firearms regulation preempted portions of Chapter 57 of the Montgomery County Code (to the extent that it regulates the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms)? 2) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code is not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution? 3) Did the trial court correctly find that Chapter 57 of the County Code affected a taking of “major components” of firearms and privately made firearms within the meaning of the Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 40, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 4) On Montgomery County’s cross-petition, did the trial court err in invalidating and prohibiting enforcement of portions of the county code that were not referenced in the operative complaint and that Petitioners placed at issue for the first time in their motion for summary judgment?
George Bowens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company – Case No. 10, September Term, 2025
Issue – Insurance Law – Does the “debt or damages claimed” against an underinsured motorist carrier include amounts paid by the tortfeasor’s liability carrier?
Denied/Dismissed March 21, 2025
The order denying or dismissing the below petitions can be found here.
Akparewa, Alex Ologbo v. State – Pet. No. 420
Clarke, Notheron N. v. State – Pet. No. 429
Copper v. Curtis – Pet. No. 389
DeBerry, Shaunesi Y. v. State – Pet. No. 221
Discavage v. Patterson – Pet. No. 459
Epps v. WesBanco Bank – Pet. No. 455
Evans v. Kravets – Pet. No. 454
Floyd v. Nuisance Abatement Board – Pet. No. 439
Franklin, Kelly Jerome v. State – Pet. No. 428
Glover, Shiloh Calvin v. State – Pet. No. 442
Gomez-Gonzalez, Josue A. v. State – Pet. No. 423
Griffith, Michael v. State – Pet. No. 311
Gunnarsson v. Gunnarsson – Pet. No. 418
Guthrie v. Vincenti – Pet. No. 461
Hicks, Antonio v. State – Pet. No. 435
Hill, Rome v. State – Pet. No. 443
In the Matter of Dunlap – Pet. No. 447
Kalantar v. Galeano – Pet. No. 436
Kalantar v. Galeano – Pet. No. 458
Khan v. Manzoor – Pet. No. 414
Livingston v. Giant Food – Pet. No. 456
Lopez-Duprey v. Nolasco – Pet. No. 417
Mayor & City Cncl. Of Baltimore v. Frank – Pet. No. 434
Meeks v. Meeks – Pet. No. 438
Mosco v. Russell-Outen – Pet. No. 415
N’Jai v. Boyd – Pet. No. 398
Neal-Williams, Rodjuan v. State – Pet. No. 432
Noble, Kyle Martin v. State – Pet. No. 444
Porter v. Harford Cnty. Dept of Social Services – Pet. No. 446
Sharpe v. Creighton – Pet. No. 425
Sniadach v. Two Farms – Pet. No. 431
Snowden, Delonta Alonzo v. State – Pet. No. 441
Ward v. Gulati – Pet. No. 449