SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2013
Tuesday, April 29, 2014:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 50 (2012 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Matthew John McDowell and John Stephen Burson
Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorneys for Respondents: Stanley J. Reed and Michael J. Neary for respondent McDowell; Deborah Murrell Whelihan for respondent Burson
No. 86 Muriel Peters v. Early Healthcare Giver, Inc.
Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Are overtime wages recoverable under the MD Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL)? 2) In a bench trial, is it an abuse of discretion to fail, without explanation, to award treble damages under the MWPCL where there is no claim of bona fide dispute? 3) Should any award of up to treble damages under MWPCL be made in addition to the award of unpaid wages?
Attorneys for Appellant: Elana Gelfman and Debra Gardner
Arguing as Amicus on behalf of Appellee: Jennifer Katz
No. 88 G.E. Frisco, Co., Inc., et al. v. Anthony Oliver
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Was the trial court correct in granting summary judgment to Petitioners and affirming the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission that the accidental injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations?
Attorney for Petitioner: Donald A. Poole, Jr.
Attorneys for Respondent: Benjamin T. Boscolo and Kevin H. Stillman
No. 81 Edward J. Makowski v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Direct Appeal: Quick-take condemnation
No. 110 Claudia Natalie Cabrera v. Cecilia R. Penate, et al.
Direct appeal: Election case
No. 82 W.R. Grace & Co., et al. v. Andrew Swedo
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Did CSA err in holding that credit for compensation already paid when a permanency award is reversed on appeal should be given in terms of dollars instead of weeks?
Attorney for Petitioner: Julie D. Murray
Attorneys for Respondent: Matt M. Paavola and Brendan E. Pedersen
No. 91 Florida Rock Industries, Inc., et al. v. Jeffrey P. Owens
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Whether the statutory credit provided in § 9-633 of the Workers’ Compensation Act should be calculated based on the number of weeks of benefits previously paid or on the dollar amount of the benefits previously paid?
Attorneys for Petitioner: W. John Vernon and Lauren M. Gibbons
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin T. Boscolo
No. 92 Robert W. Coffee v. Rent-a-Center Inc., et al.
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment in favor of appellees based on a finding that when an award of Workers’ Compensation permanent partial disability benefits is increased on appeal, credit for payments made under the previous award should be expressed in weeks rather than dollars?
Attorney for Appellant: James K. MacAlister
Attorneys for Appellee: Zachary L. Erwin and David Skomba
Monday, May 5, 2014:
No. 83 Madison Park North Apartments, L.P. v. The Commissioner of Housing & Community Development
Issues – Housing and Community Development – 1) Is the Baltimore City regulation requiring multiple family housing license holders to “prevent” criminal activity void for vagueness? 2) If the CSA standard that a license holder must “hinder or impede” criminal activity is correct, was the substantial evidence that Petitioner failed to “hinder or impede” crime at MPNA? 3) Did CSA impermissibly shift the burden of proof to Petitioner? 4) Did Respondent violate Petitioner’s due process rights by prejudging, or giving the appearance of prejudgment, when it stated in a notice of hearing that “[t]here is sufficient evidence to establish that MPNA” failed to prevent crime?
Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas M. Wood
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel J. Sparaco
No. 87 Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Maryland Department of Agriculture, et al.
Issues – Agriculture – 1) Did CSA err in broadly interpreting an exemption to disclosure under the Maryland Public Information Act, where such exemptions must be construed narrowly and in favor of disclosure? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Agriculture Art. § 8-801.1(b)(2) applies to all types of nutrient management records maintained for any period of time where the plain language expressly applies only to nutrient management plan summaries maintained by the MD Dept. of Agriculture for three years or less? 3) Did CSA err in deferring to the MD Dept. of Agriculture’s interpretation of Ag. Art. § 8-801.1(b)(2), where that expansive interpretation conflicts with the narrowly-tailored exemption to disclosure provided by the plain language of the statute?
Attorney for Petitioner: Tarah Heinzen
Attorneys for Respondent: Margaret M. Witherup and Thomas F. Filbert
No. 84 Sonia Carter, et al. v. The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in its decisions that the trial court should have admitted the testimony and opinion of Respondent’s expert and should have instructed the jury on apportionment of damages? 2) Did CSA err in its conclusion that the use plaintiffs were required to join the action with a formal pleading and are now barred by the statute of limitations?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael T. Edmonds
Attorney for Respondent: Mitchell Y. Mirviss
Tuesday, May 6, 2014:
No. 105 Ben C. Clyburn, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al.
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the circuit court err in entering an injunction directing officials of the District Court to conduct initial appearances in a manner inconsistent with the existing rules promulgated by this Court? 2) Did the circuit court err in granting an application for supplemental relief based on a prior declaratory judgment without first issuing a show cause order, as required by the statute governing such applications? 3) Did the circuit court err in ordering officials of the District Court to appoint counsel for all arrestees at initial appearances and prohibiting those court officials from conducting initial appearances for arrestees who were not provided with counsel?
Attorney for Petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorneys for Respondent: Michael Schatzow
AG No. 11 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Runan Zhang
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Joseph A. Hennessey
Misc. No. 1 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. John Doe
Certified question from the Court of Special Appeals
Question - Do circuit courts have the authority to order the State to remove sex offender registration information from "federal databases"?
Attorney for Appellant: Michael O. Doyle
Attorney for Appellee: Nancy S. Forster
No. 103 Gregg Hershberger v. John Roe
Issue – Criminal Law – In light of the requirement imposed by federal law that each state maintain an online registry of sex offenders residing in the state and the obligation imposed on convicted sex offenders by federal law to register in the state where they reside, did the circuit court lack authority to direct the State to remove Mr. Roe from databases maintained in compliance with federal law, irrespective of his challenge to registration requirements imposed by MD law?
Attorney for Appellant: Michael O. Doyle
Attorney for Appellee: Nancy S. Forster
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 May 6, 2014 the Court will recess until June 4, 2014.
BESSIE M. DECKER
CLERK