SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2024
Thursday, September 5, 2024:
Bar Admissions
No. 1 SM Landover, LLC v. Wynton Sanders; SM Parkside, LLC v. Tosha Lindsey
Issues – Real Property – 1) When does a cause of action accrue under the Disclosure Act, Md. Code, Real Prop. Art. (“RP”) § 14-117(a)(3)(i), for failing to include in the initial contract of sale statutory disclosures relating to deferred water and sewer charges? 2) Is a person who is a “home builder” under Md. Code, Business Regulations Art. (“BR”) §4.5-101 relieved of their duty to register as a “home builder” when a different registered home builder is a party to the same contract? 3) Can the unregistered home builder, acting as the seller, of a new home enforce the sales contract against the purchaser where another party, here the builder of the home, who is a registered home builder is also a party to the sale contract?
Attorney for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: Brian L. Moffet
Attorneys for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: David M. Trojanowski and Cory L. Zajdel
No. 2 Caruso Builder Belle Oak, LLC v. Ronalda Sullivan
Issue – Real Property - When does a cause of action accrue under the Disclosure Act, Md. Code, Real Prop. Art. § 14-117(a)(3)(i), for failing to include in the initial contract of sale statutory disclosures relating to deferred water and sewer charges?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Bruce L. Marcus and Sydney M. Patterson
Attorneys for Respondent: David M. Trojanowski and Cory L. Zajdel
No. 3 Summer Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc.
Issue – Labor & Employment – Did ACM err by extending the exclusivity provision of § 9-509 of the Labor & Employment Article (workers’ compensation) to non-dependents?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kenneth M. Berman
Attorney for Respondent: Lacy U. Conn
Friday, September 6, 2024:
No. 6 Greenmark Properties, LLC v. Parts, Inc., et al.
Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a contract to sell the only asset of a corporation valid if the contract is signed by the sole shareholder still living at the time of the contract and who held in person or by proxy the right to vote the majority of shares in any business decision, but where the sale was not approved by the personal representative of the estates that held title to the majority of the stock? 2) Is a contract to sell the only asset of the corporation void ab initio because the sale was not approved by the corporation’s shareholders in compliance with § 3-105 of the Corporations and Associations Article? 3) Did the ACM correctly determine that petitioner failed to preserve the issue of its standing to challenge the validity of the second contract under §§ 1-403 and 3-105 of the Corporations and Associations Article?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Meighan G. Burton and Wayne S. Goddard
Attorneys for Respondent: N. Tucker Meneely and Sally V. Baldwin
Monday, September 9, 2024:
Misc. No. 50 (2023 Term) In the Matter of the Application of O.A.S. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Applicant: Irwin R. Kramer
No. 5 Isiah A. Hollins v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM erroneously apply a sufficiency of the evidence standard instead of the “some evidence” standard when it upheld the denial of Petitioner’s request for a non-pattern jury instruction regarding the alleged victim’s propensity for violence? 2) Did the trial court violate the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution when it prohibited Petitioner from cross-examining the alleged victim about visible injuries to rebut the claim raised on direct examination that the victim had outgrown any violence in his past?
Attorney for Petitioner: Isabelle Raquin
Attorney for Respondent: Cristin Treaster
No. 7 Moira E. Akers v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Is evidence of a pregnant woman’s forgoing prenatal care or evidence of a pregnant woman’s conducting Internet searches about terminating the pregnancy relevant as a matter of law to show the woman’s intent to kill the newborn at birth, or if marginally relevant, unfairly prejudicial?
Attorney for Petitioner: Gary E. Bair
Attorney for Respondent: Virginia S. Hovermill
Tuesday, September 10, 2024:
Misc. No. 1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Jane Doe
Certified Question of Law from the US District Court for the District of Maryland:
Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws ch. 5 (S.B. 686), (codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?
Attorneys for Appellant: Sarah Gragert, Allen M. Gardner, Bruce L. Marcus, Megan E. Coleman, Sydney M. Patterson and Jeffrey Luoma
Attorney for Appellee: Catherine E. Stetson
Misc. No. 2 The Key School, Inc., et al. v. Valerie Bunker
Certified Question of Law from the US District Court for the District of Maryland:
Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws ch. 5 (S.B. 686), (codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?
Attorney for Appellant: Sean L. Gugerty
Attorney for Appellee: Catherine E. Stetson
No. 9 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. John Doe, et al.
Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws ch. 5 (S.B. 686), (codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?
Attorney for Appellant: Richard S. Cleary, Jr.
Attorneys for Appellee: Robert S. Peck and Jonathan Schochor
No. 10 Board of Education of Harford County v. John Doe, et al.
Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws ch. 5 (S.B. 686), (codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?
2) As a subdivision of the State, see Bd. Of Educ. v. Sec’y of Personnel, 317 Md. 34, 44-45 (1989), does the petitioner have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the MCVA?
Attorneys for Appellant: Edmund J. O'Meally and Andrew G. Scott
Attorneys for Appellee: Aaaron M. Blank and Guy D'Andrea
After September 10, 2024, the Court will recess until October 1, 2024.
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