PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2018
Granted June 7, 2019
Credible Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Emmanuel Johnson - Case No. 19, September Term, 2019
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court erroneously apply Md. Rule 7-113(f) when it reviewed the district court’s construction of a contract’s terms for clear error rather than de novo? 2) Did the plain terms of the parties’ promissory note (“Note”) entitle Petitioner to a judgment against the Respondent? 3) In interpreting the Note, did Maryland law require the trial court to choose the one among two possible readings of the Note that was consistent with the parties’ intent?
Minh-Vu Hoang v. Jeffrey Lowery - Case No. 17, September Term, 2019
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA ignore established precedent and rules of statutory construction in holding that the tolling statute provided for under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-202 indefinitely tolled, until the closure of the bankruptcy case, actions only against debtors denied a discharge in bankruptcy? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the policy of the tolling statute should apply to cases where the debtor is denied a discharge, did CSA err in holding 1) that the statute applied to the creditor’s failure to renew his judgment; and 2) that the tolling should continue until the closure of the bankruptcy case?
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Brian J. Barrett - Case No. 22, September Term, 2019
Issue – Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that a driver detained for driving under the influence of alcohol failed to rebut a police officer’s certification that he was fully advised of the administrative sanctions of Md. Code (2018 Supp.) §16-205.1 of the Transportation Article after being given a copy of the DR-15 Advice of Rights form, which the officer read aloud to him, and thereafter asked the motorist seven times if he wanted to take a test for alcohol concentration, which the motorist refused?
Motor Vehicle Administration v. John W. Pollard - Case No. 18, September Term, 2019
Issues – Transportation – Was the administrative law judge in error to believe that a drunk driving suspect who refused a test for alcohol concentration could avoid a license suspension by asserting the defense he was “sheltering” in a vehicle without regard to the detaining officer’s reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist had been driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?
Starr Neal, et al. v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners - Case No. 21, September Term, 2019
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s order granting a Motion to Enforce Judgments against a school board pursuant to Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol.) §5-518 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) was barred by res judicata? 2) May a judgment solely against a school board employee be levied against a school board pursuant to CJP §5-518?
Randy R. Pinner v. Mona H. Pinner - Case No. 16, September Term, 2019
Issues – Civil Procedure – Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City abuse its discretion in holding that an out-of-state defendant had sufficient contact through her attorneys for specific personal jurisdiction under the Maryland long arm statute for failing to name a use plaintiff and give the notice required by Md. Rule 15-1001 in a protracted, still continuing wrongful death case that the out-of-state resident initiated in the same Maryland court and from which she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements?
Romechia Simms v. State of Maryland - Case No. 20, September Term, 2019
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) In order to issue a hospital warrant, which initiates the process of revoking conditional release granted to individuals who have been found guilty but not criminally responsible, does a trial court only have to find probable cause to believe that the individual violated a term of the conditional release order, or does the court also have to find probable cause to believe that the individual poses a danger to self, others, or property? 2) In order to comply with constitutional due process, must §3-121 of the Criminal Procedure Article be interpreted to require that a hospital warrant may be issued only where the warrant-issuing court finds probable cause to believe that the patient poses a danger to self, others, or property?
Denied June 21, 2019
101 Geneva v. Murphy - Pet. Docket No. 77 *
Aristorenas v. Montgomery Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 55 *
Blankumsee, Azaniah v. State - Pet. Docket No. 93 *
Boyce v. Howard - Pet. Docket No. 69 *
Brunson v. O'Sullivan - Pet. Docket No. 49 *
Burton v. Hale & Mariner Finance - Pet. Docket No. 21 *
Byrns, Floyd Hamilton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 92 *
Cofield v. Park Wealth Health Systems - Pet. Docket No. 71 *
Constantin, Delva v. State - Pet. Docket No. 87 *
Daley v. Foulger-Pratt Residentials - Pet. Docket No. 16 *
DeBlasis v. DeBlasis - Pet. Docket No. 60 *
Estate of Castruccio v. Castruccio - Pet. Docket No. 66 *
Fuquen v. Everitt - Pet. Docket No. 65 *
Hawkins v. Hawkins - Pet. Docket No. 54 *
Hilton, Robert Berris v. State - Pet. Docket No. 86 *
Horsley v. Ward - Pet. Docket No. 39 *
Jevaji v. Nagavalli - Pet. Docket No. 56 *
Johnson, Augusta v. State - Pet. Docket No. 58 *
Kaur v. Brown - Pet. Docket No. 38 *
Lanier, Nathaniel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 96 *
Lyles v. Kidwell - Pet. Docket No. 480
Malinowski v. Lippincott - Pet. Docket No. 72 *
McCrea v. Devan - Pet. Docket No. 62 *
Pleasure Zone v. Bd. of Appeals for Prince George's Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 57 *
Powell v. Rosenberg, Montgomery, Savitz, et al. - Pet. Docket No. 61 *
Saeedi v. Grendze - Pet. Docket No. 67 *
Struve, Jay v. State of Maryland - Pet. Docket No. 68 *
Talbot Cnty. v. Angel Enterprises Ltd. P'ship - Pet. Docket No. 51 *
Wood v. Nayfeh - Pet. Docket No. 70 *
* September Term 2019
Granted June 24, 2019
Gables Construction, Inc. v. Red Coats, Inc., et al.- Case No. 23, September Term, 2019
Issue – Torts – As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in holding that a defendant can be liable for joint tortfeasor contribution even though it is not liable to the injured person in tort by virtue of a contractual waiver of claims covered by insurance?