Bar Admissions

AG No. 36 (2012 Term)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. George Jacob Geesing

Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk
Attorney for Respondent: Kathleen Howard Meredith

No. 22 Montgomery County, Maryland v. John Distil

Issues - County Government - 1) Can the County enforce a permissive user clause in its self-insurance guarantee that excludes insurance coverage to County employees who use their county-owned vehicles outside the scope of the permissive use and can the County seek reimbursement from the employee for the damages incurred? 2) Does the collective bargaining agreement between the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 35, and the County bar the County from subrogating against a police officer for the cost of repairs to his county vehicle that was driven in violation of the vehicle use policy?

Attorney for Petitioner: Patricia P. Via
Attorney for Respondent: Thomas Patrick Ryan

No. 25  Montgomery County, Maryland v. Khana Soleimanzadeh, et al.

Issues - Real Property - 1) Where there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the valuation of a property taken in an eminent domain proceeding, may the trial court enter judgment pursuant to MD Rule 2-501 in favor of the condemnor as a matter of law? 2) Does a condemnee have a constitutionally protected right to have a jury determine just compensation even when sanctions against the condemnee prohibit the condemnee from introducing evidence in support of a claim for just compensation and the condemnee fails to show the existence of a dispute of material fact as to the compensation to be awarded? 3) Does a condemnee have a burden to produce evidence when it disputes a condemnor's estimate of fair market value? 4) Did the award of summary judgment in favor of the condemnor impair the condemnees' right to a jury trial? 5) Can the right to a jury trial in an eminent domain proceeding be waived by the landowner's failure to follow clearly proscribed rules?

Attorney for Petitioner: Robert Birenbaum
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey S. Larson

No. 30 Wilhelmina Bradford v. JAI Medical Systems Managed Care Organization, Inc.

Issue - Health Law - Did CSA err when it ruled that as a matter of law the evidence was insufficient to establish that the concededly negligent podiatrist was the apparent agent of Respondent?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian J. Murphy
Attorney for Respondent: David J. McManus

No. 28  Hubert Allen Wood v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Where Petitioner's counsel filed a request for a competency evaluation that was later withdrawn with the Petitioner's concurrence, was the trial court required to determine, on evidence contained in the record, whether Petitioner was competent to stand trial pursuant to Crim. Proc. Art § 3-104(a) and/or as a matter of due process? 2) Was the trial court required to explicitly state on the record its determination of Petitioner's competency or does the implicit determination expressed in the trial court allowing Petitioner to withdraw his request for a competency evaluation suffice? 3) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court “implicitly determined” that Petitioner was competent to stand trial? 4) Did CSA err in its determination that Petitioner had not presented enough evidence to generate a jury instruction on legally adequate provocation?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Ann Ince

No. 31 TIG Insurance Company, et al. v. Monongahela Power Company, et al.

Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did CSA err when it held that an insurance policy becomes effective upon an insurer's issuance of a proposed policy to the policyholder? 2) Did CSA err when it affirmed that Pennsylvania law applied to interpretation and application of the terms of the insurance policies at issue in this case?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Frank J. Mastro and James J. Hickey
Attorney for Respondent: Gerald P. Konkel