AG No. 7  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Wells Moore, Jr.

Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Richard Wells Moore, Jr.

AG No. 20  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Wayne Gordon Gracey

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Wayne Gordon Gracey

No. 96  State of Maryland v. Brian Rice

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

Attorney for Appellant: Michael Schatzow
Attorneys for Appellee: Michael J. Belsky and Thomas M. Donnelly

No. 97  State of Maryland v. Edward Nero

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

Attorney for Appellant: Michael Schatzow
Attorneys for Appellee: Michael J. Belsky and Thomas M. Donnelly

No. 98  State of Maryland v. Garrett Miller

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

Attorney for Appellant: Michael Schatzow
Attorneys for Appellee: Michael J. Belsky and Thomas M. Donnelly

No. 99  Alicia White and Caesar Goodson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings - 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 provide Porter sufficient protection against self-incrimination to allow his testimony to be compelled in the trials of Caesar Goodson and Alicia White?

Attorney for Appellant: Gary E. Proctor
Attorney for Appellee: Carrie J. Williams

Bar Admissions

AG No. 90 (2014 T.)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Larry D. Hunt

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Patrick Tachie-Menson

No. 65 Terrance Jamal Grant v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the State has the burden to prove that a warrantless search was lawful, the resolution of the suppression motion turns on a specific fact, and the motions court finds that the evidence to this fact is “not clear,” does the motions court err in denying the motion to suppress? 2) Does MD recognize the “supplemental rule of interpretation” by which an appellate court fills in fact-finding gaps and resolves fact-finding ambiguities and does this rule allow a reviewing court to fill in a fact that is inconsistent with a fact found by the motions court where the reviewing court does not find the fact clearly erroneous? 3) Where a motions court’s factual finding is inconsistent with its subsequent legal conclusion, may an appellate court affirm the denial of the suppression motion on the basis of an inference that is inconsistent with the motions court’s factual finding?

Attorney for Petitioner: Katherine P. Rasin
Attorney for Respondent: Gary E. O'Connor

No. 67 Brutus 630, LLC v. Town of Bel Air, Maryland

Issues – Local Government – 1) Does Md. Code Ann. Art. 24 §§ 9-710 and 9-712 restrict a citizen’s right to claim a refund of erroneously paid or collected money only to fees or charges that are “in the nature of taxes” where the plain language of the statute permits the citizen to apply for a refund, and to appeal the denial of a claim for a refund, of a “tax, fee, charge…”? 2) Does the Tax Court have jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for refund of systems connection charges? 3) Is a systems connection charge a “tax”, a “fee” or a “charge”, or a fee or a charge “in the nature of a tax” so that the Tax Court has jurisdiction over an appeal by the claimant from a denial of its refund claim?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael J. Moran
Attorney for Respondent: Charles B. Keenan, Jr.

Misc. No. 16 Dennis Merchant v. State of Maryland

Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals.

Questions - 1) Did the circuit court err in determining that the statutory scheme, set forth in Crim.Proc. §§ 3-114, et seq., for the granting and/or revocation of the conditional release of a committed person violates the separation of powers provision found in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and is thus void as unconstitutional? 2) Did the circuit court err in revoking Merchant's conditional release and ordering his continued commitment for institutional inpatient care and treatment after the ALJ had found that Merchant was eligible for conditional release and had recommended the same?

Attorney for Appellant: Brian M. Saccenti
Attorney for Appellee: Brian S. Kleinbord

No. 81 Marshall Tyrone Stoddard v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the MD Code Criminal Procedure Art. § 3-115 et. seq., interpreted by CSA in Byers v. State, 184 Md.App. 499 (2009), violate the MD Declaration of Rights Art. 8 and did the trial court err as a matter of law when it conducted a de novo hearing in violation of the statute? 2) Did the trial court err in refusing to consider the ALJ’s report and recommendations and refusing to grant Petitioner’s conditional release?

No. 1  Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association v. Prince George's County, Maryland on behalf of Prince George's County Police Department (Reargument)

Issues - Labor & Employment - 1) Did the negotiators of the collective bargaining agreement between Prince George's County and the Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association have the authority to enter into a contractual provision that extends a Weingarten right to criminal investigations? 2) As a matter of contract interpretation, does Article 8.C of the collective bargaining agreement apply to criminal investigations?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Abigail V. Carter and Bruce R. Lerner
Attorney for Respondent: Josue Pierre

No. 68 Peninsula Regional Medical Center v. Tracey L. Adkins

Issues – Labor and Employment – 1) Under MD’s Fair Employment Practices Act, is an employee required to show that she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” before an employer has a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation? 2) May a plaintiff prevail on a disability discrimination or failure to accommodate claim where that employee failed to engage in the interactive process with the employer?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Randi K. Hyatt and Joseph Garrett Wozniak
Attorney for Respondent: John B. Stolarz

No. 66 Michael A. Dinapoli, et al. v. Board of Appeals of Queen Anne's County, et al.

Issues – Local Government – 1) What is the proper standard of review for county Boards of Appeals to apply when ruling on motions to dismiss? 2) Does the heightened aggrievement standard applied by the Queen Anne’s County Board of Appeals and the reviewing courts, pursuant to Queen Anne’s Co. Code § 18:1-119.A(1)(a) conflict with Md. Code Ann., Local Gov’t § 10-305(a)(4), which allows for petition to a county board of appeals by “any interested person”? 3) Is it error to defer to an administrative agency’s ruling on a question of law where the agency has admitted on the record that it is confused as to the applicable legal standard, has refused to follow the advice of agency counsel, and has expressed its desire for clarification and further guidance from the reviewing courts? 4) Did CSA improperly substitute its own judgment for that of the Board of Appeals in holding that Petitioners had not alleged the necessary elements for taxpayer standing where the Board’s Findings and Decision remained silent on this issue?

Attorney for Petitioner: Rosemary C. Greene
Attorneys for Respondent: Charles O. Monk, II and Mark F. Gabler