SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2022
Thursday, June 1, 2023:
Bar Admissions
No. 33 Thomas L. Lloyd v. Anna Cristina Niceta
Issues – Family Law – 1) Are penalties in postnuptial contracts void, just as penalties in all other contracts are void? 2) If there is no blanket ban on penalties in postnuptial contracts, is the penalty in the parties’ contract void?
Attorney for Petitioner: Steven M. Klepper
Attorneys for Respondent: Jeff Evan Lowinger and Melissa L. Schefkind
No. 34 Lateekqua Jackson v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a defendant consent expressly to a trial date in violation of the 180-day rule in Md. Rule 4-271 and Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure § 6-103 when the trial date is dictated to the defendant by the court and the defendant does not choose the date? 2) Did Petitioner, a represented defendant appearing in court without her assigned counsel, consent expressly to a trial date in violation of the 180-day rule when she acknowledged for the court the date she had to appear for trial and, unbeknownst to her, that date was after the 180-day deadline?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew H. Costinett
No. 35 State of Maryland v. Garrick L. Powell, Jr.
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Can defense counsel’s conduct in relation to the scheduling of the first trial date, short of express consent to exceed the Hicks date or to the particular trial date selected, amount to implicitly seeking a first trial date in violation of the Hicks rule, forestalling dismissal for a violation of that rule? 2) Did Respondent’s counsel implicitly seek a first trial date in violation of the Hicks rule through his conduct in this case?
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew H. Costinett
Attorney for Respondent: John N. Sharifi
Friday, June 2, 2023:
Misc. No. 28 John Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Questions: 1) Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-606, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 2) Whether, under Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-604(2), the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act applies to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity to perform work connected with all activities of the religious entity or only those activities that are religious in nature. 3) Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-304, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Attorney for Appellant: Anthony J. May
Attorney for Appellee: Joseph C. Dugan
No. 36 State of Maryland v. Daniel Ashley McDonnell
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did Respondent lack any legitimate expectation of privacy in a mirror-image copy of his laptop hard drive that the government created with his consent, and as to which he expressly disclaimed any possessory or privacy interest before the copy was created? 2) Did the ACM err in holding that Respondent’s revocation of consent to examine the contents of his laptop barred investigators from examining the mirror-image copy of his hard drive, when the post-withdrawal examination of the copy was not a search?
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew H. Costinett
Attorney for Respondent: Joshua M. Wesneski
No. 37 Eastland Food Corporation, et al. v. Edward Mekhaya
Issue – Corporations & Associations – May a minority shareholder bring a direct action against a closely-held Md. corporation whose Board of Directors had never declared a dividend on the grounds that a portion of the employment compensation previously paid to him was a “de facto dividend” he expected to continue, even though this Court has never recognized the doctrine of “de facto dividend” and Maryland law provides dividends cannot accrue or be payable unless they are declared by the corporation’s Board of Directors?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Stuart A. Berman and Jeffrey M. Orenstein
Attorney for Respondent: Gregory A. Dorsey
After June 2, 2023, the Court will recess until September 7, 2023. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk's Office no later than 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise notified.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK