Bar Admissions

AG No. 7 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandy F. Thomas-Bellamy

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Alexander Williams, Jr.

No. 16  Eastern Shore Title Company v. Steven J. Ochse, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) May a party recover their attorney’s fees for the exact same matter more than one time as “damages”, even in separate cases? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in the legal standard used to determine the correct amount of the damages award pursuant to the collateral litigation rule for legal expenses incurred? 3) Does the collateral source rule apply to an award of damages for the breach of two separate contracts involving different parties under different circumstances in different courts where separate consideration was paid for each contract?

Attorney for Petitioner: Alvin I. Frederick
Attorneys for Respondent: Michael J. Jacobs and Robert D. Schulte

No. 14 Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by applying the economic loss doctrine to a limited class of professionals – designers in government contracts – to shield an engineer from liability to a contractor when the engineer knows that its services will be relied upon to the contractor’s detriment if the engineer’s services are negligently performed? 2) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action under Restatement of Torts (Second) § 552 against an engineer who negligently supplied information when all other elements are met and when other professional providers of information are not so protected? 3) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action for negligent misrepresentation against an engineer when the engineer: (a) intended the contractor to rely upon the representations; (b) knew that the contractor would rely upon the design; and (c) knew that the contractor would be harmed if the design was negligently performed?

Attorney for Petitioner: Gregory S. Martin
Attorney for Respondent: John A. King

No. 7 Richmond D. Phillips v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Under the Frye-Reed standard what is “generally accepted as reliable” in analyzing and interpreting complex mixtures of low template “touch” DNA? 2) In this case, was the Prince George’s County Crime Lab’s methodology “generally accepted as reliable” in the relevant scientific field? 3) Did CSA improperly deviate from Frye-Reed by reaching a conclusion without considering evidence from the relevant scientific community, other than the two opinions expressed at a pretrial hearing? 4) Did CSA err in holding that compliance with § 10-915 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article required certification of meeting a non-existent standard neither party advocated?

Attorney for Petitioner: Daniel M. Kobrin
Attorney for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.

AG Nos. 9 & 25 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Howard Allenbaugh

Attorney for Petitioner: Amy S. Paulick
Attorney for Respondent: Mark Howard Allenbaugh

No. 17  Albert F. Oliveira, et al. v. Jay Sugarman, et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a board of directors entitled to the presumption of the business judgment rule contained in Md. Code Ann, Corps. & Ass’ns § 2-405.1 when responding to a shareholder demand without presenting evidence that the board acted independently, in good faith, and was reasonably informed as required by Boland v. Boland, 423 Md. 296, 31 A.3d 529 (2011)? 2) May shareholders of a Md. corporation bring direct claims against the board of directors for misrepresentations made in a proxy statement soliciting shareholder votes and for breaches of a shareholder-approved incentive stock plan?

Attorney for Petitioner: Nicholas I. Porritt
Attorney for Respondent: G. Stewart Webb, Jr.

No. 15 Keisha Ann Hartman v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Where a defendant enters into a non-binding plea agreement in the District Court in which the State agreed to recommend no incarceration, and subsequently notes a de novo appeal from the final judgment of the District Court, does the State remain obligated to make that sentencing recommendation in the Circuit Court if the defendant pleads guilty?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian M. Saccenti
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss

No. 21 Laura Lynn Hughes v. Stephen Moyer, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Issues – State Personnel & Pensions – 1) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the notice requirements imposed on the State by Md. Code. Ann, State Pers. & Pens. § 11-106(a)(5)? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the minimum level of due process due to Petitioner prior to the State’s deprivation of a property right?

Attorney for Petitioner: E. Peter Melcavage, II
Attorney for Respondent: Lisa O'Mara Arnquist

AG No. 15 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Allen Moore, II

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Richard A. Finci

AG No. 52 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Susan Myra Geller Kirwan

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Susan Myra Geller Kirwan

No. 12  Afshin Attar, et al. v. DMS Tollgate, LLC, et al.

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Does Maryland’s special exception jurisprudence require the Baltimore Co. Board of Appeals to define the boundaries of the neighborhood of the proposed special exception before approving that special exception? If so, did the Board of Appeals’ opinion satisfied Maryland’s minimum requirements for articulating the facts found regarding the neighborhood’s boundaries? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the Applicant met its burden of proof, as articulated by the concurring opinion in People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Loyola College in Maryland, 406 Md. 54 (2008)?

Attorney for Petitioner: G. Macy Nelson
Attorney for Respondent: G. Scott Barhight

No. 19  Katherine Seley-Radtke v. Ramachandra S. Hosmane

Issue – Torts – In a defamation case brought by a private individual, does the heightened standard for overcoming a conditional privilege, as recognized in Jacron Sales Co., Inc. v. Sindorf, 276 Md. 580 (1976), impose a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence?

Attorney for Petitioner: Eric J. Delfosse
Attorney for Respondent: Neil R. Lebowitz

AG No. 47 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dalton Francis Phillips

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Dalton Francis Phillips

No. 18 National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. The Fund For Animals, Inc.

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the actual prejudice standard in Insurance Art. § 19-110 requires an insurer to prove that, had it received timely notice, the outcome would have been different? 2) Did CSA exceed its authority by instructing the trial court on remand to permit and grant a belated motion for judgment, when such a motion was never filed at the time of trial? 3) Did Petitioner waive the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel by failing to plead that defense in its answer or mention it during discovery? 4) Does collateral estoppel apply to the findings made in the Endangered Species Act case?

Attorney for Petitioner: Linda S. Woolf
Attorney for Respondent: Robert T. Shaffer, III

No. 13  Sheila M. Breck v. Maryland State Police

Issue – Public Safety – Did CSA err in holding that Extra-Duty Secondary Employment, as that term is used by the Maryland State Police, is not Secondary Employment within the meaning of Public Safety § 3-103(b)?

Attorney for Petitioner: Bryan T. Dugan
Attorney for Respondent: Mark H. Bowen

No. 20 Gary Alan Glass v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al.

Issues – State Government – 1) Are the trial courts precluded from making any finding that material sought by a person about himself may be severed from an internal affairs file pertaining to a specific, identified law enforcement officer under the Public Information Act? 2) Does the custodian of records for a governmental unit have any responsibility under the Public Information Act to disclose computerized records created and used in the work of the unit, but stored outside the unit, when the governmental unit has the right and practical ability to retrieve the records on demand? 3) Having determined that the custodians knowingly and willfully failed to conduct a legally adequate search in locations where responsive material is likely to be found, was it error for the trial court to decline to order a remedial search in those locations?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian D. Patterson
Attorney for Respondent: Philip E. Culpepper

No. 64 (2015 T.) Terrance J. Brown v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Pursuant to the “supplemental rule of interpretation,” where a motions court makes a legal determination without making factual findings, must an appellate court fill in the fact-finding gaps by giving little or no weight to the losing party’s evidence, discrediting the losing party’s witnesses, and resolving any ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the prevailing party? 2) In reversing a suppression ruling, may an appellate court rely on a fact on which conflicting evidence was presented below or must the court accept the version of facts most favorable to the prevailing party? 3) What effect does a motions judge’s failure to make factual findings to support its legal conclusion have on the parameters of the appellate court’s review where conflicting versions of events necessitating factual findings were not presented at the motions hearing? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the motions court’s grant of Petitioner’s suppression motion?

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

No. 50 Linda H. Lamone, et al. v. Ian Schlakman, et al.

Issues – Election Law – Did the trial court err in entering an ex parte temporary restraining order that requires the Appellants to remove the name of a qualified candidate from the ballot in Baltimore City Councilmanic District No. 12 for the 2016 General Election?

Attorney for Appellant: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorney for Appellee: H. Mark Stichel