Bar Admissions

Misc. No. 3 In the Matter of the Application of T. Z.-A. O. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland.

Attorney for Petitioner: Norman L. Smith

AG No. 4 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandy Yeh Chang

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Timothy F. Maloney

AG No. 7 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Thomas Mixter

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Michael J. Budow

No. 20  Bernard Delaney McCree, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Is the trademark counterfeiting statute, Md. Code, Crim. Law Art. § 8-611 (2012 Repl. Vol.), unconstitutional because it is overbroad and/or void-for-vagueness?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael T. Torres
Attorney for Respondent: Christopher Mason

No. 23  Dominik Oglesby v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Pursuant to the rule of lenity, was Appellant required to be sentenced for possession of a firearm pursuant to Crim. Law Art., § 5-622, one of the two statutes punishing the conduct for which he was sentenced, because it prescribed a more lenient sentence than that mandated by the statute, Public Safety Art., § 5-133, under which he was sentenced?

Attorney for Appellant: Bradford C. Peabody
Attorney for Appellee: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer

No. 26  Dennis J. Kelly, Jr. v. George W. Duvall, Jr., et al.

Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the lower court err in construing the Will in a manner inconsistent with Md. Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 4-401 and finding that it imposed survivorship as a condition precedent to inheritance under the Will? 2) Did the lower court err in construing the Will as demonstrating the Testatrix’s contrary intent sufficient to overcome the presumption that § 4-403 (2013) (the “anti-lapse” statute) applies?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Allan J. Gibber and Nichole M. Galvin
Attorneys for Respondent: Kimberly C. Aviles and E. Anne Hamel

AG No. 3 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bruce Michael Smith

Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Bruce Michael Smith

No. 21 People's Insurance Counsel Division v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al.

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Should this Court reexamine Maryland common law on construing insurance contracts and, recognizing that such contracts are not the product of equal bargaining, hold that terms contained in an insurance policy must be strictly construed against the insurer? 2) Did the Commissioner err in allowing State Farm to deny coverage for damage to a collapsed carport under a policy that insured against “the sudden, entire collapse of a building” based on a restrictive definition of the term “building” that does not appear in the insurance policy or any other written document, and is based only on oral instructions given to a catastrophe claims adjuster when she was dispatched to handle claims following a severe snowstorm?

Attorney for Petitioner: Peter K. Killough
Attorney for Respondent: Michael Budow

No. 25  Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300, and David A. McClure v. William T. Lovelace, Jr.

Issue – Labor & Employment – Is an internal union remedy “inadequate” under Md. common law if it does not allow for the monetary damages that the plaintiff seeks in court?

Attorney for Petitioner: John M. West
Attorney for Respondent: Paul F. Evelius

No. 19 William Rounds, et al. v. Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al.

Issues – Local Government – 1) Whether parties seeking redress from alleged government violations of the Constitution should be required to adhere to the strict notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the severe remedy of dismissal for an alleged failure to join necessary parties, despite the Complaint’s assertion that non-defendant neighbors did not oppose action? 3) Did CSA err in its factual determination that Petitioners failed to file this cause of action within the statute of limitations?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael R. Sklaire
Attorney for Respondent: Adrian R. Gardner

AG Nos. 32 & 46 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John M. Green

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: John M. Green

No. 27 Joseph F. Cunningham, et al. v. Matthew Feinberg

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Does application of the Md. choice of law principle of lex loci contractus preclude a claim under the Md. Wage Payment and Collection Law (MD. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (“MWPCL”))? 2) Does proper application of lex loci contractus preclude respondent’s MWPCL claim?

Attorney for Petitioner: James F. Williford, Jr.
Attorneys for Respondent: Matthew E. Fineberg and Nathan I. Finkelstein