Bar Admissions

No. 66 County Council of Prince George's County, MD Sitting as the District Council v. Chaney Enterprises Limited Partnership et al.

Issues – Land Use – 1) Does § 22-407 of the Land Use Article (“L.U.”) and Md. Rule 7-201, et seq., authorize the filing of a petition for judicial review as a modality to maintain a judicial challenge to an area master plan? 2) Does L.U. § 22-407 and Md. Rule 7-201 et seq., authorize a non-party to an agency proceeding approving an area master plan to file a petition for judicial review as a modality to maintain a judicial challenge to the approved plan? 3) Does Anne Arundel Co. v. Bell, 442 Md. 539 (2015) require Respondents to demonstrate taxpayer standing in order to maintain a judicial challenge to an area master plan? 4) Did Respondents fail to exhaust administrative remedies? 5) Did CSA err when it invalidated Petitioner’s area master plan? 6) Are the mining restrictions, including the categorical ban on mining, imposed by Petitioners through amendments to the Subregion 5 Master Plan are preempted by the comprehensive and all-encompassing State law regulatory scheme governing surface mining?

Attorney for Petitioner: Rajesh A. Kumar
Attorneys for Respondent: Warren K. Rich and Peter C. Hershey

No. 73 Chateau Foghorn LP v. Wesley Hosford

Issue – Real Property – Did CSA err in its preemption analysis by concluding that Section 8-402.1 of the Real Property Article (Md. Code Ann.) does not do “major damage” to the clear and manifest intent of Congress and the express language of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development’s implementing regulations for project-based rental subsidy programs?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Avery B. Strachan and Kerri L. Smith
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew Zernhelt

No. 77 Fredia Powell et al. v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) After a court finds a criminal defendant incompetent to stand trial and in need of mental health treatment and orders the person committed to DHMH for such treatment under § 3-106(b) of the Criminal Procedure Article (“Crim. Proc.”), does the court have the authority to specify the date by which DHMH must comply with the court’s order? 2) After a court finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial and in need of mental health treatment, does Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights require the individual to be removed from jail or detention and placed in a DHMH mental health facility by the date set in the court’s §3-106(b) commitment order or by a reasonably short time thereafter?

Attorney for Appellant: Ralph S. Tyler, III
Attorney for Appellee: Matthew J. Fader

No. 75 Michael Vito et al. v. Candace Grueff

Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did CSA err by ignoring the intent of the settlor, as expressed in the plain and unambiguous language of the Trust instrument, by holding an amendment clause cannot be used to modify the beneficiary section of the Trust, even though the amendment complied with the plain language of the amendment clause?

Attorney for Petitioner: Glenn C. Etelson
Attorney for Respondent: Damon K. Bernstein

No. 84 State of Maryland v. Robert L. Copes, Jr.

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in excluding the evidence recovered by the police?

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

AG Nos. 6 & 13 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Denise Leona Bellamy

Attorney for Petitioner: Ebtehaj Kalantar
Attorney for Respondent: Denise Leona Bellamy

AG No. 81 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melodie Venee Shuler

Attorneys for Petitioner: Amy S. Paulick and Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Melodie Venee Shuler

No. 76 Stanley Rochkind v. Starlena Stevenson

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err when it determined under Frye-Reed that it is “generally accepted” that lead exposure causes ADHD (general causation)? 2) Did CSA err by conducting its own, non-adversarial Frye-Reed analysis on whether lead exposure causes ADHD rather than remanding to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing? 3) Did CSA err when it failed to apply the “reliable methodology” requirement of Rule 5-702 to the medical expert’s opinion that lead exposure “caused” Respondent’s ADHD (specific causation)?

Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas J. Cullen, Jr.
Attorneys for Respondent: Scott E. Nevin and Suzanne C. Shapiro

AG No. 59 (2015 T.) & AG No. 12  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bonnie Elizabeth Plank

Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Bonnie Elizabeth Plank

AG No. 30 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Kotlarsky

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless and Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Mark Kotlarsky

No. 82 Eddie Lee Savage, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when it concluded that the defense expert’s neuropsychological examination and DSM-IV diagnosis based on a standard battery of tests were subject to Frye-Reed? 2) Where the unrefuted evidence presented at the Frye-Reed hearing established that the defense expert’s methodology consisted of “validated measures that have scientific acceptance and approval within the community of neuropsychologists” and Petitioner was diagnosed under the DSM-IV, did CSA err when it concluded that the defense failed to meet the Frye-Reed standard? 3) Did CSA err when it affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the defense expert’s conclusion that Petitioner “views the world through an untrusting and suspicious perspective, and often is hyper-vigilant to possible threats”? 4) Did CSA err when it permitted the State in closing argument to impeach Petitioner’s testimony based on his failure to tell the police at any time prior to trial that he acted in self-defense?

Attorney for Petitioner: Matthew M. Bryant
Attorney for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.