SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2022
Thursday, September 8, 2022:
Bar Admissions
No. 6 Ernest and Maryann Elsberry v. Stanley Martin Companies, LLC
Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court rely on legislative history unrelated to the specific statutory text at issue to override the consumer protections granted in the plain language and tabulation of Md. Code § 14-117(a)(3) of the Real Property (“RP”) Article, an unambiguous remedial statute? 2) Did CSA violate Article III, Section 29 of the Maryland Constitution by using the title of the bill “Prince George’s County – Deferred Water and Sewer Charges Homeowner Disclosure Act of 2014” to contradict the plain language of RP § 14-117(a)(3)(ii)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Cory L. Zajdel
Attorney for Respondent: Brian Moffet
No. 3 Hector Fussa v. Margaret Chippendale, Warden
Issue – Correctional Services – Has Petitioner been “previously convicted” pursuant to Md. Code § 3-702 of the Correctional Services Article, where the conviction for the first offense was imposed during the same criminal proceeding as the conviction for which he is denied diminution of confinement credit and, if not, is Petitioner being illegally detained and entitled to immediate release?
Attorneys for Appellant: Lauren S. Castelli and Stephen Z. Meehan
Attorney for Appellee: Michael O. Doyle
No. 2 M. Abraham Ahmad v. Mehdi Ahmad & Giti Ahmad Revocable Trust
Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Can the statute of limitations operate to adversely affect a substantive right of a party acquired under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction? 2) Can a legal nullity start the running of the statute of limitations? 3) Can a trust void ab initio and made in violation of law benefit from a statute of limitations defense?
Attorney for Petitioner: Stephen J. Whelan
Attorney for Respondent: Todd P. Forster
Friday, September 9, 2022:
No. 5 Access Funding, LLC, et al. v. Chrystal Linton, et al.
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must determine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties when Respondents did not challenge the validity or enforceability of the underlying agreements containing the arbitration clauses in their complaint? 2) Did CSA err in ruling that the trial court must decide the existence of an arbitration agreement when well-established Federal and Maryland law mandates that the arbitrator and not the court decides the issue of arbitrability when Respondents executed agreements containing arbitration clauses that expressly stated the arbitrator shall decide the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute, and Respondents have only alleged fraud and misrepresentation as to the agreements as a whole and not with respect to the arbitration clause separately and specifically?
Attorney for Petitioner: Charles M. Sims
Attorney for Respondent: Brian S. Brown
Misc. No. 1 Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Question: When a first-party, all-risk property insurance policy covers “all risks of physical loss or damage” to insured property from any cause unless excluded, is coverage triggered when a toxic, noxious, or hazardous substance – such as Coronavirus or COVID-19 - that is physically present in the indoor air of that property damages the property or causes loss, either in whole or in part, of the functional use of the property?
Attorneys for Appellant: Joseph D. Jean and Deborah B. Baum
Attorney for Appellee: Craig D. Roswell
No. 7 Comptroller of Maryland v. FC-GEN Operations Investments LLC
Issues – Tax-General – 1) Should this Court overrule recent decisions and hold that on judicial review of a decision in a tax case, the agency owed deference in the interpretation and application of tax law is the Comptroller and not the Tax Court? 2) Did the Tax Court and CSA err in finding that estimated tax remittances are “deposits,” not statutorily required “payments,” when Maryland’s doctrine of conformity requires the application of federal law to Md. Code § 13-1104(c) of the Tax-General Article, and federal law considers them payments? 3) When properly applied, do Maryland’s voluntary payment rule and the statutory framework for refunds of estimated taxes found in found in Title 13 of the Tax-General Article require denying FC-GEN’s claim, which it improperly submitted for itself, under the law?
Attorney for Petitioner: Murray Singerman
Attorneys for Respondent: Herman B. Rosenthal and Jordan M. Halle
Monday, September 12, 2022:
No. 1 Susan Dzurec, et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County, Maryland, et al.
Issues – Local Government – 1) If a county commissioner is voting to enact a Comprehensive Plan in violation of the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance, is that vote ultra vires? 2) Does the Calvert County Ethics Ordinance include an implied cause of action for citizens with standing?
Attorney for Petitioner: G. Macy Nelson
Attorney for Respondent: John A. Mattingly, Jr.
No. 64 (2021 T.) Antonio McGhee v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law – 1) Do Charles v. State, 414 Md. 726 (2010), Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011), which concern the propriety of CSI-effect voir dire questions and jury instructions, apply to cases that became final before those decisions issued? 2) Did Petitioner’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel when at Petitioner’s 2007 trial, she failed to object to a CSI-effect voir dire question?
Attorney for Petitioner: Allison Pierce Brasseaux
Attorney for Respondent: Virginia Hovermill
Tuesday, September 13, 2022:
No. 4 Ray Crawford, et al. v. County Council of Prince George's County, Sitting as the District Council, et al.
Issue – Land Use – Is an Amazon Last Mile Hub a “warehouse” and, therefore, permitted by right at the Subject Property?
Attorney for Appellant: G. Macy Nelson
Attorneys for Appellee: Brett Ingerman and Rajesh A. Kumar
No. 9 United Parcel Service, et al. v. David Strothers
Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of Md. Code § 9-504 of the Labor & Employment (“LE”) Article, that “definite proof” applies to the quality of evidence presented, and not to the standard of evidence presented when the same quality of evidence is required in all claims presented before the Workers’ Compensation Commission? 2) Did CSA err when it found that the Respondent met his burden of production when producing medical evidence to a preponderance of the evidence standard, a standard to which all other claims submitted before the Workers’ Compensation Commission must meet? 3) Did CSA err when, in a case of first impression, it held, contrary to the plain language and legislative history of LE § 9-504, that “immediate operation is needed” applies to the recommendation for surgery and not the timing of the surgery, finding 59 days to be “immediate”?
Attorney for Petitioner: Erinn F. Grzech
Attorney for Respondent: Ruth M. Schaub
After September 13, 2022, the Court will recess until September 30, 2022. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise notified.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK