Source: https://mdappblog.com/2014/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:42:55+00:00

Document:
Issue – Criminal Law – Is the trademark counterfeiting statute, Md. Code, Crim. Law Art. § 8-611 (2012 Repl. Vol.), unconstitutional because it is overbroad and/or void-for-vagueness?
Issue – Criminal Law – Pursuant to the rule of lenity, was Appellant required to be sentenced for possession of a firearm pursuant to Crim. Law Art., § 5-622, one of the two statutes punishing the conduct for which he was sentenced, because it prescribed a more lenient sentence than that mandated by the statute, Public Safety Art., § 5-133, under which he was sentenced?
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Should this Court reexamine Maryland common law on construing insurance contracts and, recognizing that such contracts are not the product of equal bargaining, hold that terms contained in an insurance policy must be strictly construed against the insurer? 2) Did the Commissioner err in allowing State Farm to deny coverage for damage to a collapsed carport under a policy that insured against “the sudden, entire collapse of a building” based on a restrictive definition of the term “building” that does not appear in the insurance policy or any other written document, and is based only on oral instructions given to a catastrophe claims adjuster when she was dispatched to handle claims following a severe snowstorm?
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the State violate a criminal defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when a prosecutor repeatedly and over objection assures the jury in opening statement that the defendant “will tell you” that he committed the alleged offenses? 2) Does a trial court commit reversible error when it allows the State to offer opinion testimony from a law enforcement officer concerning his canine partner’s alleged detection of an accelerant without requiring the State to name the officer as an expert prior to trial or to qualify the officer as an expert at trial? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a police officer may not testify as to the significance of an accelerant-detecting dog’s actions unless that officer is first qualified and accepted as an expert pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702?
1. Did the circuit court err in entering an injunction directing officials of the District Court to conduct initial appearances in a manner inconsistent with the existing rules promulgated by this Court?
2. Did the circuit court err in granting an application for supplemental relief based on a prior declaratory judgment without first issuing a show cause order, as required by the statute governing such applications?
3. Did the circuit court err in ordering officials of the District Court to appoint counsel for all arrestees at initial appearances and prohibiting those court officials from conducting initial appearances for arrestees who were not provided with counsel?
Argument has been set for March 7, 2014. This blog has provided extensive analysis (see below) of the DeWolfe v. Richmond decisions regarding the right to counsel at bail hearings. We’ll be providing commentary on Clyburn v. Richmond — including the implications for DeWolfe v. Richmond — as details develop.
Alan Sternstein, DeWolfe v. Richmond: State Law or Just Law?
[A] claim for legal costs based on a contractual provision that is not limited to expenses incurred during the underlying litigation is an element of damages to be proved at trial under the substantive law governing the action, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2), 58(c), and that a judgment that leaves open such a claim is not final and appealable.
No more. This morning, the Supreme Court cited Carolina Power as standing on one side of a circuit split, and the Court unanimously went the other way: “Whether [a] claim for attorney’s fees is based on a statute, a contract, or both, the pendency of a ruling on an award for fees and costs does not prevent, as a general rule, the merits judgment from becoming final for purposes of appeal.” Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 15, 2014).
Anyone litigating contract actions in the Fourth Circuit should take note. Decisions from the Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits also were cited on the losing side of the circuit split.

References: § 8
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.