SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2024
Friday, April 4, 2025:
Bar Admissions
No. 35 Jennifer Adelakun v. Adeniyi Adelakun
Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Is an order denying pendente lite child support and alimony appealable under § 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article?
Attorney for Petitioner: Elizabeth M.W. Pittman
Attorney for Respondent: Thomas McKeon
No. 38 County Council of Prince George's County v. Robin Dale Land, LLC, et al.
Justice Battaglia will sit in place of Justice Killough
Issues – Land Use – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the District Council’s adoption of Council Resolution (CR)-136-2021 approving the Countywide Sectional Map Amendment is not comprehensive rezoning when this Court in Prince George’s Cnty. Council v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George’s Cnty., 485 Md. 150 (2023), and the Maryland General Assembly, recognized that CR-136-2021 is comprehensive rezoning? 2) Did ACM err in its interpretation and application of Section 27-222 of the prior zoning ordinance (concerning sectional map amendments) and this Court’s precedent on the hallmarks of comprehensive rezoning when it held that the District Council’s adoption of CR-136-2021 is not a comprehensive rezoning? 3) Did ACM err when it failed to apply CR-136-2021, a change in law, as required by McHale v. DCW Dutchship Island, 415 Md. 145 (2010), when ACM previously held in Bazzarre v. County Council, 2017 WL 2334472 (May 30, 2017) that none of the property owners had vested or accrued substantive rights. 4) Was the District Council’s adoption of CR-11-2019 and CR-12-2019 approving the Subregion 5 and 6 Master Plans and Sectional Map Amendments, made within the legal boundaries of its plenary legislative powers?
Attorney for Petitioner: Rajesh A. Kumar
Attorneys for Respondent: Edward C. Gibbs, Jr., and Thomas H. Haller
No. 40 Daniel M. Hall v. Anne Arundel County
Issues – Health General – 1) Did the trial court err in affirming the Personnel Board’s decision that the County’s termination of Petitioner’s employment for using medical cannabis with a valid written certification was proper? 2) Did the trial court err in affirming the Board’s finding that Petitioner could have been under the influence of cannabis at work?
Attorney for Petitioner: Mark W. Howes
Attorney for Respondent: Genevieve Marshall
Monday, April 7, 2025:
AG No. 27 (2023 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Marnitta Lanette King
Justice Getty will sit in place of Justice Killough
Attorney for Petitioner: Leonard H. Addison, IV
Attorney for Resondent: Tiffany T. Alston
No. 27 Janice Hollabaugh v. MRO Corporation
Issues – Fees - 1) Whether under Maryland’s Confidentiality of Medical Records Act (CMRA), § 4-304 of the Health General Article, the ACM erred in holding that respondent is permitted to charge a “reasonable cost-based fee” for “retrieval and preparation” of requested medical records, when respondent had no medical records to retrieve, produce or copy? 2) May the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint be affirmed on the alternative ground that she lacks standing under the CMRA because any claim would have to belong to her attorneys who requested her records and were required to pay the allegedly unauthorized fee?
Attorney for Petitioner: Richard S. Gordon
Attorney for Respondent: Stephen Fogdall
No. 33 Todd A. Pattison v. Deborah Pattison
Issue – Family Law – Did the trial court err in holding that the Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement signed by both parties was valid and enforceable?
Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas J. Fleckenstein
Attorney for Respondent: Susan Carol Elgin
Tuesday, April 8, 2025:
No. 36 Travis Rashard Shepperson v. State of Maryland
DNA Appeal.
Attorney for Appellant: Stephen B. Mercer
Attorney for Appellee: James N. Lewis
No. 39 Sergey S. Danshin v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to propound the pattern jury instruction on defense of others where Petitioner denied being the shooter but the record provided evidence of the Petitioner’s state of mind at the time of the shooting?
Attorney for Petitioner: Megan E. Coleman
Attorney for Respondent: Philip Donoho
After April 8, 2025, the Court will recess until May 5, 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