SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2024
Tuesday, October 1, 2024:
Bar Admissions
No. 8 In re: M.Z.
Issue – Family Law – When a court terminates jurisdiction in a CINA case over the objection of a parent, is the parent “aggrieved” by that court’s unfavorable judgment such that the parent is entitled to appeal?
No. 14 Mark Zukowski, et al. v. Anne Arundel County
Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Did the General Assembly intend to offset compensation or benefits to be paid directly to claimants when it adopted Md. Code, Labor & Employment Art. § 9-610?
Wednesday, October 2, 2024:
No. 11 Homer Walton, et al. v. Premier Soccer Club, Inc., et al.
Issue – Torts – Did ACM properly affirm the trial court’s ruling that a violation of Md. Code Health General Article § 14-501 (concussion policy and awareness) could not be the proximate cause of a concussion injury as a matter of law notwithstanding that the injured person was within the class of persons – youth athletes – that the statute was intended to protect and the injury was the type of injury the statue was designed to prevent?
No. 4 State of Maryland v. Dominick Scarbro
Issue – Constitutional Law – When an appellant claims a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to a public trial based on the trial court’s ostensible denial of courtroom access, does the burden lie with appellant to establish preliminarily that the courtroom closure is significant enough (i.e. not “de minimis”) that it implicates the constitutional right and requires analysis under the four-part test articulated in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)?
Monday, October 7, 2024:
No. 15 In Re: The Estate of Michael Gerard Schappell
Issue – Estates & Trusts – Did ACM err by rejecting Maryland’s longstanding requirement of an agreement to adopt as an element of equitable adoption, instead replacing it with a case-by-case examination of “fairness” factors?
No. 16 In the Matter of Cindy Isely
Issue – Family Law – Does the reach of Federal preemption extend such that a former spouse is without rights to enforce a contract related to already distributed retirement proceeds from a federal Thrift Savings Plan; or does Maryland follow the reasoning and interpretation set forth in Andochick v. Byrd, 709 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2013), allowing a former spouse to enforce a contract right regarding already distributed retirement proceeds to effectuate the intention of the parties?
Tuesday, October 8, 2024:
No. 17 In the Matter of the Petition of Featherfall Restoration LLC
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Does the standard insurance policy clause prohibiting assignment of “this policy” absent insurer consent prohibit the insured from assigning a post-loss claim benefit under the policy without its consent? 2) Did the lower courts err in affording deference to and affirming the ruling of law by the Maryland Insurance Administration (“MIA”) that anti-assignment clauses in property insurance policies preclude post-loss assignments of claims, instead of following this Court’s precedents upholding post-loss claim assignments in the face of anti-assignment clauses? 3) Did the lower courts err in affirming the MIA’s decision that Petitioner, as an assignee of insurance benefits from the insurer, was not a “claimant” or “aggrieved” with standing to challenge the insurer’s unfair claims settlement practices with respect to the claim assigned? 4) Should the trial court have issued a declaratory judgment that the assignment of claim benefits at issue did not violate the contractual provision that “assignment of this policy will not be valid unless we give our written consent” instead of deferring to the agency’s interpretation of Maryland contract law? (Note: The SCM granted a writ of cert only as to Petitioner’s questions 2, 4, 5, and 6.)
No. 18 Timothy Leiweke, et al. v. Craig Bernstein
Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Under Md. Rule 2-403, which instructs a court to “enter any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”, should a court quash a subpoena for a high-ranking corporate executive when the executive has carried the burden to demonstrate that the information is available through less intrusive means?
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After October 8, 2024, the Court will recess until November 1, 2024.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK