Bar Admissions

AG No. 35  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas Patrick Dore

Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk
Attorney for Respondent: Alvin I. Frederick

No. 87  Roguell Blue v. Prince George's County, Maryland, et al.

Issue - Public Safety - In applying the "supervisory employee" exemption to the handgun control law, should the requirement that the employee be "within the confines of the business establishment" be restricted to inside the building only, as CSA ruled?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeanette P. Henry
Attorney for Respondent: Shelly L. Johnson

Nos. 95 & 101  In Re: Ryan W.

Issues - Juvenile Law - CINA - 1) Did CSA err in holding that a local department of social services has plenary authority to apply for and use a foster child's OASDI benefits without seeking an express grant of authority from the juvenile court to exercise control over the benefits and without providing the foster child with notice and the opportunity to be heard? 2) Did CSA err in rejecting the juvenile court's exercise of its authority in determining that a total of $31,693.50 was to be conserved in Ryan's best interests? 3) Did CSA err in upholding state practice and regulations that require automatic, non-discretionary application of all of a foster child's OASDI benefits and that are inconsistent with federal regulations requiring the proper exercise of discretion as a representative payee? 4) Did CSA err in directing the juvenile court, on remand, to revise it's monetary award against the State by requiring the Department to deposit funds into a foster child's trust account because, as CSA had already concluded, the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to enter such an order and because such an order is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity?

Attorney for Petitioner: Ramesh Kasarabada
Attorney for Respondent: Julia Doyle Bernhardt

AG No. 28  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Francis Gerace

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither

No. 90  Ogden E. Coleman, II v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to multiple instances during trial where the State brought into evidence that Petitioner had remained silent in the face of police questioning after Petitioner had been issued Miranda warnings?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael P. Lytle
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer

No. 93  Jeremy K. Fishman, et al. v. Sheila Murphy, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy Mae Urban

Issues - Real Property - 1) Whether the doctrine of equitable subrogation is to be broadly and liberally applied or applies only to refinance lenders who, after a foreclosure sale, obtain a position of priority over intervening judgment holders? 2) Whether undisputed facts supporting the application of the doctrine of equitable subrogation establish "good cause" under MD Rule 14-211(e) sufficient to prevent the lower court from dismissing a foreclosure action under a pending motion to stay or dismiss where the moving party concedes that the doctrine should apply? 3) Whether a trial court is required to deny a motion to stay or dismiss under MD Rule 14-211, where the trial court has found that the motion to stay or dismiss was not filed under oath nor supported by affidavit as required by subsection (a)(3)(A) of the rule and no good cause for the failure to file under oath or affirmation has been provided or alleged? 4) Whether the constructive notice provided by Rule 12-102 pursuant to the doctrine of lis pendens defeats all claims against title to real property subject to that constructive notice regardless of the outcome of the pending litigation?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mark Schweitzer
Attorney for Respondent: Charles Bagley, IV

No. 96  Adeline Sturdivant, et al. v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issues - Labor and Employment - 1) After a layoff, do laid-off State employees have a statutory right, under Title 11, to reinstatement by seniority if the unit seeks to fill vacancies in the same class? 2) As Spring Grove Hospital did not comply with each of the steps for recruitment, set out in Title 7, when it filled vacant DCA positions, must it reinstate the aggrieved employees?

Attorney for Petitioner: Joel A. Smith
Attorneys for Respondent: Sarah Rice and David Morgan

No. 94  Lincoln Miller v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did CSA overstep its bounds in holding that there was no existing precedent as of the date Petitioner's conviction became final that would have compelled a ruling that the failure to advise a criminal defendant about deportation consequences constituted ineffective assistance of counsel despite precedent in the form of Denisyuk v. State, which held that the Supreme Court ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively to post-conviction challenges of guilty pleas entered after April 1, 1997? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Denisyuk did not apply to Petitioner's case because his claim for coram nobis relief was based exclusively on his assertion that his guilty plea was involuntary and not that his trial counsel was ineffective? 3) Was Petitioner's guilty plea entered into voluntarily where he was not advised of the certain immigration consequences, that is, placement in deportation proceedings, that would follow as a result of the plea? 4) Did CSA correctly affirm the trial court's denial of coram nobis relief upon this Court's remand for reconsideration where CSA held that the ineffective assistance of counsel issues addressed in Denisyuk did not apply to Petitioner's voluntariness issue; the law at the time of Petitioner's guilty plea did not support a finding of ineffective assistance in any event; and Petitioner's guilty plea was voluntarily entered with knowledge of the direct consequences of the plea? 5) Did CSA improperly consider Petitioner's claim regarding the denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis on remand where Petitioner had waived the claim on which he sought relief and where Petitioner's claim was without merit in any event?

Attorney for Petitioner: Flynn M. Owens
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Ann Ince

No 97  Josephine Chesson, et al. v. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co.

Issue - Civil Procedure - Did CSA err in holding that the Frye-Reed standard for the admissibility of scientific expert opinion requires a consensus in the relevant scientific community supporting that opinion?

Attorney for Petitioner: Gerald F. Gay
Attorney for Respondent: Nancy J. Courson