SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2012
Thursday, March 7, 2013:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 37 In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Jose Expedito M. Garcia to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Petitioner: Jose Expedito M. Garcia
Attorney for Respondent: Raymond A. Hein
AG No. 66 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Edward Coppock, Jr.
Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk
Attorney for Respondent: Henry J. Myerberg
No. 62 Anthony Zei v. Maryland Transit Administration
Issue – Statutory Interpretation – Did CSA err in holding that a bus operator's failure to meet federal DOT safety standards rendered him unqualified as a matter of law for an MTA bus operator position?
Attorney for Petitioner: Paul F. Evelius
Attorney for Respondent: Steven M. Sullivan
No. 61 Jose F. Lopez v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Is the defense of laches available to the State in post-conviction cases, even though pursuant to Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27 § 645A(e) an inmate is entitled to file a petition "at any time"? (2) Assuming the defense of laches is available in this case, did the post-conviction court err in ruling that the defense of laches applied? (3) Did CSA correctly hold that the doctrine of laches applies to post-conviction proceedings relating to convictions pre-dating October 1, 1995? (4) Did CSA err in concluding that the record lacked sufficient evidence of laches? (5) Did CSA err in remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the defense of laches applied after it had concluded that the State had failed meet its burden to prove either of the two prongs of the laches defense?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Ann Ince
AG No. 9 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Brien Michael Penn
Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Brien Michael Penn
Misc. No. 21 St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc., Mark G. Midei, M.D., and Midatlantic Cardiovascular Associates, P.A. v. The Honorable John Grason Turnbull, II
Petition for writ of mandamus.
Attorney for Appellant: Andrew D. Levy
Attorney for Appellee: Steve Sullivan
No. 63 Thomas C. Lindsay, Sr., et al. v. Annapolis Roads Property Owners Association, et al.
Issues – Real Property – (1) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat may be created without an express reference to the plat? (2) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat is created when the plat creates a strip of land but does not contain any words that demonstrate the existence of easement rights over the strip? (3) Whether an easement appurtenant to an unimproved lot may be used by the owner of other improved lots that are forever merged into the lot with the easement appurtenant?
Attorney for Petitioner: Linda M. Schuett
No. 64 Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp. v. Belinda Beebe-Lee
Issues – Insurance Law – (1) Did CSA err in affirming that Insurance Article of the MD Code provides PCIGC with only a limited right to contest settlements entered into between claimants and insolvent insurers? (2) Did CSA err in affirming that PCIGC is liable to claimants for twice its statutory limit of liability on a claim for a single bodily injury where the insolvent insurer provided both primary coverage and umbrella coverage?
Attorney for Petitioner: Albert J. Mezzanotte
Attorney for Respondent: Dennis F. O'Brien
Monday, March 11, 2013:
AG No. 10 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robert Norman Levin
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Philip F. Hudock
No. 67 Bobbi Jo and Billy G. Hunt, Sr. v. Aberdeen Proving Ground Federal Credit Union
Issues – Real Property – (1) Did CSA err in holding that foreclosure proceedings were not a foreseeable result of Aberdeen's failure to wire money to the Petitioners' mortgage company? (2) Did the trial court err in calculating damages based on the value of the property at the foreclosure sale as opposed to the fair market value of the property?
Attorney for Petitioner: E. Ellis Rollins
Attorney for Respondent: Dennis W. King
No. 60 State of Maryland v. Tyres Kenard Taylor
Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Did CSA incorrectly apply MD Rule 4-215 where there was no request by the defendant for discharge of trial counsel and the only issue before the trial court was an administrative request for a continuance? (2) Did CSA incorrectly construe MD Rule 4-215 when it found that the trial court violated the rule? (3) Did the lower court violate Respondent's constitutional right to representation by counsel of his choice?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michelle W. Cole
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey M. Ross
Tuesday, March 12, 2013:
No. 57 William J. Warr, Jr., et al. v. JMGM Group, LLC d/b/a Dogfish Head Alehouse
Issue - Torts - Whether this Court should recognize dram shop liability?
Attorney for Appellant: John Vail
Attorneys for Appellee: Robert B. Hetherington and Amy Leete Leone
No. 53 Darnell Fields v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Does the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule bar the admission of prior testimony by a witness who, subsequent to providing the testimony, was convicted of perjury? 2) Did CSA err in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for the admission of prior testimony under the former testimony exception or, in the alternative, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to propound a missing witness instruction? 3) Where an internal affairs investigator for police found "facts sustained" against officers, did the trial court err in refusing to permit the defense to inspect internal investigation division files concerning misconduct by the officers and, at trial, refusing to allow the defense to cross-examine the officers about the misconduct?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. DeLeonardo
Attorney for Respondent: Todd W. Hesel
No. 81 Clayton Colkley v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Does the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule bar the admission of prior testimony by a witness who, subsequent to providing the testimony, was convicted of perjury? (2) Did CSA err in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for the admission of prior testimony under the former testimony exception or, in the alternative, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to propound a missing witness instruction? (3) Where an internal affairs investigator for the police found "facts sustained" against officers, did the trial court err in refusing to permit the defense to inspect internal investigation division files concerning misconduct by those officers and, at trial, in refusing to allow the defense to cross-examine the officers about the misconduct?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Todd W. Hesel
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After March 12, 2013 the Court will recess until April 4, 2013.
BESSIE M. DECKER
CLERK