SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2024
Monday, March 3, 2025:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 23 (2023 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gary Pisner
Attorney for Petitioner: Katherine T. Getty
Attorney for Respondent: Gary Steven Pisner
No. 34 In the Matter of the Marriage of Houser
Issues – Family Law – 1) Did the trial court err when it issued a child support order after the parties had voluntarily withdrawn child support as a justiciable issue, and the court did so over the objections of the parents who the court found to be fit and proper? 2) Did the trial court mis-apply the statute, or abuse its discretion, when the court ordered child support and arrears over the express objection of the parents who the court found to be fit and proper? 3) Did the trial court violate the parents’ constitutional rights when the court sua sponte, and without evidence, rejected their agreement regarding the financial support of their child when the parents were found to be fit and proper? 4) Does the Maryland child support statute permit parents to waive a party’s child support obligation, as part of a global settlement agreement, where the parties have shared physical custody, and their combined adjusted gross income exceeds the highest level of income set forth in the Maryland child support Guidelines? 5) Does the ACM’s decision have a chilling effect on parents’ rights to enter into agreements that they believe to be in their children’s best interest?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Charles J. Muskin and Mandy L. Miliman
Attorney for Respondent: Joshua M. Segal
Misc. No. 21 Harry Davis Jr. v. State of Maryland
Certified Question of Law from the Appellate Court of Maryland
1) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to file a motion for modification of sentence, must a defendant prove that he requested trial counsel to file the motion? 2) If not, should Maryland Courts adopt the framework established in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), which addressed an ineffective assistance claim based on the failure to file a notice of appeal, and apply that framework to a claim based on the failure to file a motion for modification?
Attorneys for Appellant: Douglas Nivens, II and Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Appellee: Gary E. O'Connor
Tuesday, March 4, 2025 - to be held at Montgomery College's Rockville Campus Performing Arts Center:
No. 31 Fred Cromartie v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Can prosecutors designate a law enforcement officer as the State’s “representative” under Rule 5-615(b)(2), and thereby exempt the officer from otherwise mandatory witness sequestration? 2) If there is an officer exemption under Rule 5-615(b)(2), is that exemption discretionary? 3) May a law enforcement officer designated as a party representative under Rule 5-615(b)(2) provide lay opinion testimony relying on knowledge gained by hearing other witnesses testify?
Attorney for Petitioner: John N. Sharifi
Attorney for Respondent: Cristin Treaster
Misc. No. 17 Estefany Martinez v. Amazon.com Services LLC
Certified Question of Law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Does the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, as described in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) and Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014), apply to claims brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law?
Attorney for Appellant: Brian J. Markovitz
Attorney for Appellee: Jason C. Schwartz
After March 4, 2025, the Court will recess until April 3, 2025.
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 8:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK