Source: http://www.mdcourts.gov/coappeals/webcastarchive.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 04:50:45
Document Index: 427034850

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 24', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 21', 'Art.24']

Attorneys - Change Your Name on the Court's Official Roll Highlighted Cases ORAL ARGUMENTS- ARCHIVES SEPTEMBER TERM 2012 Webcasts
September Term 2011 WebcastsSeptember Term 2010 Webcasts
September Term 2006 Webcasts May 2013 Schedule
Gail B. Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment, et al. Issues � Courts & Judicial Proceedings � (1) Whether the statute of limitations bars a claim against a defendant who has continuously contaminated surface and groundwater for longer than three years, and who continues to contaminate that water? (2) Whether groundwater contamination that polluted surface water is a permanent nuisance notwithstanding that Respondents had entered into a Consent Order which required the Town to abate the nuisance? (3) Whether Petitioner's cause of action for inverse condemnation accrued when the lake was first polluted in 1996 or when her bank foreclosed on her property in 2010? (4) Whether the lower court erred when it held that Petitioner has not shown a "series of acts or course of conduct" that could toll the statute of limitations?
Bernard Dixon, etc., et al. v. Ford Motor Company
Issues � Torts � (1) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting under Rule 5-702 the opinion of Plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Welch, because Dr. Welch's testimony did not satisfy CSA's newly-articulated model of "probabilistic causation"? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting the opinion of Dr. Welch that Mrs. Dixon's alleged secondary exposure to asbestos through Petitioner's work with Ford brake linings was a substantial contributing factor in her mesothelioma, where that opinion was offered in response to a hypothetical question that assumed facts not in evidence? (3) If admitting this expert witness was error, was it harmless error because of the unchallenged admission of substantively identical testimony by another expert witness and because the jury concluded that the exposure in question was the only substantial contributing factor causing the illness? (4) Did the trial court err by using it's revisory power under Md. Rule 2-535(a) to hold Georgia-Pacific, LLC liable on Ford's cross-claim based on the trial court's conclusion that the jury's verdict that Georgia-Pacific was not liable for Mrs. Dixon's death, but that Ford was so liable, were irreconcilably inconsistent? (5) Did the trial court err in failing to use its revisory power to also enter judgment on Ford's cross-claim against Honeywell? (6) Whether the different treatment of individuals with identical damages under the statutory cap on non-economic damages found at C&JP �11-108 violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Articles 5, 19, 23, and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, as interpreted by this Court in Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992). (7) If Dr. Welch's causation opinions were inadmissible, should final judgment in favor of Ford be rendered, as opposed to merely a new trial? (8) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Ford's Motion for New Trial given that (a) the jury's verdict was inconsistent and against the great weight of the evidence, (b) Plaintiffs' closing arguments were highly improper, and prejudicial and (c) the verdict was shocking?
Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Jocelyn A. Farrar
AG No. 21
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jimmy Anthony Bell
In re: Adoption/Guardianship of Jayden G.
Thommy Whack, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Bashawn Montgomery Ray v. State of Maryland
John L. Webb, Sr., et ux. v. G. Phillip Nowak, et ux.
AG No. 20
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gina Michelle O'Leary
Attorney Grievance Commmission of Maryland v. Dean Clayton Kremer
AG No. 18
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jason Ashley Kobin
Joanna Anthony v. Peter Garrity
Ocean City, Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Daniel J. Barufaldi
AG No. 82 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jonathan David Sperling
Robert Oku v. State of Maryland
Issues � Criminal Law � (1) Whether Petitioner's right to a de novo appeal of his District Court conviction under MD Code � 12-401 of the Courts & Jud. Proc. Art. was violated when defendant's testimony from that trial was admitted into evidence in his circuit court trial? (2) Whether Petitioner's due process rights, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. 24 of the MD Declaration of Rights, were violated when petitioner's testimony from the District Court trial was admitted into evidence in his circuit court trial, thus denying him the full benefit of the process that must be afforded him under the de novo system?
No. 4 (2013 Term)
In re: Ashley S. and Caitlyn S.
Issues - Family Law - 1) Where the Appellate Court held the removal of children from their mother's care to have been an abuse of judicial discretion, may the juvenile court in a subsequent hearing consider those months that the children spent in foster care as being an "out-of-home placement" for the purposes of determining the permanency plan for the children, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., CJP � 3-823? 2) Did the juvenile court err in ordering a plan of adoption for the children, where they were aged 13 years and 4 � years and had a bond with their mother?
Catherine Lynn Turner v. Direse Helen Hastings
Issues � Torts � (1) Did CSA err in vacating an award of damages where the portion of the verdict concerning damages had not been announced in open court? (2) Did the trial court have the power to correct what it saw as an inconsistent verdict?
Antonio L. Brown v. State of Maryland
AG No. 24
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Valentine Patton, III
Karl Marshall Walker, Jr. v. State of Maryland
The Town of La Plata, et al. v. Faison-Rosewick, LLC, et al.
Issues � Election Law � (1) Did the trial court correctly determine that the Town's signature validation procedures, published two days before the signature pages were filed, were untimely, ultra vires, facially-invalid, improperly "abandoned" by the Town, & that the referendum process was tainted by those errors? (2) Because under Art. 23A, �19(g) the referendum petition, & under �19(j) the ballot, cannot include the three Non-Referable Resolutions, did the Town err in permitting verification of signatures to proceed on the legally insufficient pages & including the Non-Referable Resolutions on the proposed ballot, while failing to make the mandatory finding that the pages complied with Art. 23A, �19? (3) Given the lack of detail in Art. 23A, �19(g) regarding verification of signatures on municipal referenda, and in light of Cumberland and Tyler, should State-based common law be applied to protect the integrity of this municipal referendum process? (4) Can the Town of LaPlata challenge its own Resolutions on this appeal under the principles set forth in Burning Tree? (5) Did the trial court properly have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's challenge? (6) What is the appropriate standard of appellate review? (7) Did the trial court correctly conclude that the LaPlata town manager acted beyond his authority when he, rather than the Town Council, published the criteria he applied to verify and validate petition signatures and he did so two days before deadline for the submission of those signatures? (8) Even if the town manager acted beyond his authority, does that ultra vires act thereby warrant invalidating the petition, precluding the referendum election, & thereby punishing the citizens of LaPlata who were blameless in the matter? (9) Whether the referendum petition & ballot are invalid because, in addition to seeking a referendum on the Town Council's annexation resolution, they also mention three other resolutions, all inextricably related to the annexation resolution? (10) Whether, despite the clear inapplicability of the MD Election Code to the municipal referendum at issue, the court should have invalidated the referendum because LaPlata's petition verification procedures did not meet the requirements set forth in the Election Code? (11) Since Art. 23A � 19(g) imposed on the Town manager the mandatory duty to verity signatures on an annexation petition without any guidance as to how to perform that duty, does the Town manager have implied authority to use any reasonable means to fulfill that duty, including the promulgation of written procedures, without the need for authorizing legislation by the Town Council? (12) Since those written procedures were intended to assist the Town manager in the verification of annexation referenda petitions, did the promulgation of those procedures two days before the petition for referendum was submitted violate any due process rights of Plaintiffs or the public at large? (13) Should this Court apply MD common law relating to referendum petitions, developed under the Election Law Art., to municipal annexation referenda when the Election Law Art. expressly excludes from its scope elections conducted and petitions filed under Art. 23A �19?
Long Green Valley Association, et al. v. Bellevale Farms, Inc., et al.
Issue � Environmental Law � Whether the grant of a conservation easement to the State creates a charitable trust such that interested third parties have standing to file an action seeking to enforce that easement when the State has failed to do so?
Benjamin Morgan Hawkes v. State of Maryland
David Scull, et al. v. Groover, Christie & Merritt, P.C.
State of Maryland v. Sean Fennell
Motor Vehicle Administration v. James Robert Spies, III
William J. Warr, Jr., et al. v. JMGM Group, LLC d/b/a Dogfish Head Alehouse
Darnell Fields v. State of Maryland
Clayton Colkley v. State of Maryland
AG No. 10
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robert Norman Levin
Bobbi Jo and Billy G. Hunt, Sr. v. Aberdeen Proving Ground Federal Credit Union
Issues � Real Property � (1) Did CSA err in holding that foreclosure proceedings were not a foreseeable result of Aberdeen's failure to wire money to the Petitioners' mortgage company? (2) Did the trial court err in calculating damages based on the value of the property at the foreclosure sale as opposed to the fair market value of the property?
State of Maryland v. Tyres Kenard Taylor
Issues � Criminal Law � (1) Did CSA incorrectly apply MD Rule 4-215 where there was no request by the defendant for discharge of trial counsel and the only issue before the trial court was an administrative request for a continuance? (2) Did CSA incorrectly construe MD Rule 4-215 when it found that the trial court violated the rule? (3) Did the lower court violate Respondent's constitutional right to representation by counsel of his choice?
AG No. 9
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Brien Michael Penn
Misc. No. 21
St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc., Mark G. Midei, M.D., and Midatlantic Cardiovascular Associates, P.A. v. The Honorable John Grason Turnbull, IIPetition for writ of mandamus.
Thomas C. Lindsay, Sr., et al. v. Annapolis Roads Property Owners Association, et al.
Issues � Real Property � (1) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat may be created without an express reference to the plat? (2) Whether an implied easement by reference to a plat is created when the plat creates a strip of land but does not contain any words that demonstrate the existence of easement rights over the strip? (3) Whether an easement appurtenant to an unimproved lot may be used by the owner of other improved lots that are forever merged into the lot with the easement appurtenant?
Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp. v. Belinda Beebe-Lee
Issues � Insurance Law � (1) Did CSA err in affirming that Insurance Article of the MD Code provides PCIGC with only a limited right to contest settlements entered into between claimants and insolvent insurers? (2) Did CSA err in affirming that PCIGC is liable to claimants for twice its statutory limit of liability on a claim for a single bodily injury where the insolvent insurer provided both primary coverage and umbrella coverage?
AG No. 37
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Jose Expedito M. Garcia to the Bar of Maryland
AG No. 66 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Edward Coppock, Jr.
Anthony Zei v. Maryland Transit Administration
Issue � Statutory Interpretation � Did CSA err in holding that a bus operator's failure to meet federal DOT safety standards rendered him unqualified as a matter of law for an MTA bus operator position?
Jose F. Lopez v. State of Maryland
Issues � Criminal Law � (1) Is the defense of laches available to the State in post-conviction cases, even though pursuant to Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27 � 645A(e) an inmate is entitled to file a petition "at any time"? (2) Assuming the defense of laches is available in this case, did the post-conviction court err in ruling that the defense of laches applied? (3) Did CSA correctly hold that the doctrine of laches applies to post-conviction proceedings relating to convictions pre-dating October 1, 1995? (4) Did CSA err in concluding that the record lacked sufficient evidence of laches? (5) Did CSA err in remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the defense of laches applied after it had concluded that the State had failed meet its burden to prove either of the two prongs of the laches defense?
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joel Jay Fader
This case was argued concurrently with No. 46 below. Arguments for both cases are in one recording.
Anthony Tyler v. State of Maryland
This case was argued concurrently with No. 52 above. Arguments for both cases are in one recording.
Jeffrey Robert Valonis v. State of Maryland
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Angela Brock
Issue - Statutory Law - Whether an entity in possession of a promissory note indorsed in blank � the most common type of indorsement for thousands of notes owned by mortgaged-backed security trusts � is not a holder and is merely a non-holder in possession, in conflict with Title 3 of the Maryland UCC & a misinterpretation of Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232 (2011)?
Michael David Gordon v. State of Maryland
Maryland Economic Development Corporation v. Montgomery County, Maryland
Board of Directors of Cameron Grove Condominium, II, et al. v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations
ssues - Administrative Law - 1) Whether the Agency's Appeal Board erred by requiring that Petitioners show evidence that thieves and vandals had gained illegal entry to the building before it could prohibit keys from being distributed to doors which were not secure? 2) Whether CSA correctly ruled that the Agency's Appeal Board had performed the balancing test required by MD's reasonable accommodation statute? 3) Whether the Agency's Appeal Board erred by ignoring the county Planning Board's Specific Design Plan, which required that a security system be installed on the doors in question?
Jennifer Evans Dize, Personal Representative of the Late William Smith Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots
Joan J. Stickley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that Ins. Code � 19-504.1 does not apply to excess of umbrella policies? 2) Whether a personal liability umbrella policy that includes motor vehicle liability insurance constitutes "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance" as contemplated by Ins. Code � 19-504.1?
William H. Matthews v. W.C. Pinkard & Co., Inc., etc., et al.
Issues - Corporations &Associations - 1) Did the trial court err in failing to apply either MD Cts. & Jud. Proc. �5-203 or MD's discovery rule, which govern when a cause of action accrues, to Appellant's claims for violations of the MD Securities Act? 2) Did the trial court err in determining that the financial transactions at issue did not satisfy the MD Securities Act's definition of an "investment contract"? 3) Did the trial court err in its dismissal of Appellant's common law claims, including fraud and misrepresentation, because it failed to properly apply MD Cts. & Jud. Proc. �5-203 and/or MD's discovery rule?
Paul F. Kendall, et al. v. Howard County, Maryland
AG No. 81 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeffrey David Kahl
Falls Road Community Association, Inc., et al. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et al.
Issues - County Government - 1) Can a writ of mandamus lie to compel the executive branch of county government to enforce the unequivocal terms of an adjudicatory order of that county's board of appeals, or does the county have discretion to refuse to enforce an order of the board of appeals? 2) When the executive branch of county government violates an order of its board of appeals, does a writ of mandamus lie to compel the county to remedy that violation? 3) Must administrative remedies be primary, and must they be pursued and exhausted, when those remedies would be futile because the county itself violated the law? 4) Is the ability to seek supplementary relief under CJ, �3-412 sufficient to meet the requirement in a declaratory judgment action that the requested declaration serve to terminate the controversy giving rise to the action? 5) Is coercive or injunctive relief available under the MD Declaratory Judgment Act? 6) Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant a declaratory judgment for petitioners after finding that declaratory judgment would not terminate the controversy between the parties because a) Petitioners sought a declaration that the repaving of the parking lot was illegal; b) there was no basis to order the tenant to deconstruct the parking lot, since its landlord (Baltimore County) ordered the repaving; and c) Baltimore County could not be ordered to remove the repaving, as it was not subject to a writ of mandamus? 7) Whether Petitioners were entitled to seek a declaratory judgment from the trial court without first pursuing the special statutory remedies available to them for enforcement of zoning orders and regulations? 8) Whether the circuit court was legally correct in granting Respondents' motions for summary judgment on Petitioners' claims for mandamus relief on the ground that the duties imposed on Baltimore County are discretionary in nature? 9) Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in entering judgment for Respondents on Petitioners' claim for declaratory relief on the grounds that such relief would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to this action and that coercive or injunctive relief is not available under the MD Declaratory Judgment Act. 10) Whether the Petitioners' claims for declaratory injunctive and mandamus relief should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies?
Constantine Koste v. Town of Oxford, et al.
Issue - Election Law - May signatures on a petition for referendum under Md. Code Ann. Article 23A, �19(g) be counted if obtained after publication of the notice of the annexation resolution but before enactment of the unmodified resolution?
AG No. 74 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Paul Winston Gardner, II
Gregory Hall, et al. v. Prince George's County Democratic Central Committee, et al.
No. 34 (2011 Term)
Paul B. DeWolfe, in his official capacity as the Public Defender for the State of Maryland, et al. v. Quinton Richmond, et al. Reargument. Issues - Criminal Law - Are Petitioners entitled, under the recently amended Public Defender Act (2012 Md. Laws ch. 504-05), to relief on the basis of the right to counsel provided in either or both the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art. 21 of the Md. Declaration of Rights and/or either or both the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and Art.24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights.
No. 6 (2010 Term)
Orville Cooper v. State of Maryland
Issues � Criminal Law � 1) Did the trial court err in allowing an expert witness to testify regarding the report of another expert who did not testify at trial in violation of the rules against the admission of hearsay? 2) Did the trial court err in allowing the non-testifying expert's report into evidence in violation of appellants constitutional right of confrontation? 3) Did the trial court err in allowing the non-testifying expert's report into evidence without a proper foundation in the form of a demonstrated chain of custody of the evidence tested? 4) Did the trial court err in admitting other prejudicial hearsay?
In the Matter of the Application of Drew Everett Stewart for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
AG No. 98 (2011 Term)
In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rex B. Wingerter to the Maryland Bar
A & E North, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
AG No. 70 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alfred Amos Page, Jr. 12-04-12
Big Louie Bail Bonds, LLC v. State of Maryland, et al.
Issue � Courts and Judicial Proceedings � Should bond be released and a bail bondsman's liability on bond be discharged when a defendant fails to appear in court because of the actions of the MD Department of Public Safety and/or the United States Department of Justice?
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Edward L. Pitts, Sr.
Issues � Labor & Employment � 1) Whether the federal regulation governing the ballast used to support railroad track, 49 C.F.R. � 213.103, applies to track and walkways located within rail yards as well as to track on the main line? 2) Whether CSA acted contrary to Supreme Court precedent when it adopted "an employee-friendly standard" of review in FELA cases? 3) Whether the trial court erred in preventing Petitioner from cross-examining Respondent's economist about work-life statistics concerning railroad employees' average age at retirement?
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Edward Hunt
Misc. No. 7
Daryl Jones v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al.
Issues � County Government � 1) Whether the County may remove an elected official from his or her seat for conviction of a misdemeanor when there is no local law in effect to govern the removal of a Councilmember for conviction of a crime and � 2 of Art. XV of the MD Constitution does not allow for removal under the circumstances in this case? 2) Whether the County may remove an elected official from his or her seat for inability to perform the daily duties of office for a period of five months? 3) Whether the County may remove an elected official from his or her seat by interpreting a residency requirement to mean "place of abode" rather than "domicile"? 4) Does the Clean Hands Doctrine bar the Petitioner's claims for relief seeking removal of an incumbent member of the County Council from office and restoration of Petitioner to office?
AG No. 27
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robert Weston Mance, III
Misc. No. 10
Gladys Gardner, Individually on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Ally Financial Incorporated, f/k/a GMAC Incorporated
William M. Bailey v. State of Maryland
Misc. No. 8
Andre Bourgeois, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. Certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Transcare Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Bryson Murray, et al.
Kent Island, LLC v. Michael A. Dinapoli, et al.
Issues � Courts and Judicial Proceedings � 1) Whether CSA erred in finding that the Circuit Court of one county has subject matter jurisdiction to review a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court for another county? 2) Whether CSA erred in finding that a consent order agreed to by the parties and entered as a final judgment was a mere settlement agreement, reviewable by another court, rather than a final judgment that could only be revised by the Circuit Court entering the judgment as set forth in Rule 2-535?
B. Marie Green, Supervisor of Assessments of Montgomery County v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Issue � Taxation � Does the parsonage or convent exemption in Tax-Prop. � 7-204 apply to 46-unit apartment complex owned by Appellees and occupied by married and single church workers who pay rent to the Church and conduct religious services at the Church's temple, which serves a district that covers the mid-Atlantic region?
Misc. No. 2
Christopher Eric Bouchat v. State of Maryland
Misc . No. 3
Petition of Delores Kelley and James Brochin
Petition of Cynthia Houser, et al. v. Martin O'Malley
Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Thomas M. Albright, et al. Issues- Torts - 1) Whether, in an action for fraud, evidence of the Defendant's false, sworn testimony to the government, made with the intent of influencing government action, & relied upon by it to the Plaintiff's detriment, satisfies the requirement that Plaintiffs prove reliance? 2) Whether property owners whose sole source of potable water has been contaminated with a genotoxic substance for which there is no safe level of exposure, are entitled to damages for fear of cancer or for medical monitoring. 3) Whether, in an action for property damage, evidence that the Defendant released contaminants into the aquifer that serves as the Plaintiff's sole source of potable water is sufficient to establish Defendant's liability for an invasion of the Plaintiff's land?
Exxon Mobil v. Paul D. Ford, et al.
Issues - Torts - 1) Does MD permit awards for emotional distress due to fear of developing cancer &, if so, must claimant prove that his or her wrongful exposure to a carcinogen makes it more likely than not that he or she will develop cancer? 2) May a jury's verdict that all of Plaintiffs' properties were worthless be upheld where (a) the properties were all still habitable & many had no contamination; (b) all experts testified that the properties retained substantial value; & (c) those properties which were sold all sold for a substantial price? 3) Did CSA err in holding that counsel for Petitioner did not waive his client's right to challenge the compensatory damage awards, despite implicit acquiescence in the jury verdict? 4) Should Plaintiff's property damage expert's opinions have been admitted where he failed to use any generally accepted method of valuation & he failed to consider actual sales or forecast accurately those arms length valuations? 5) Should emotional distress verdicts be overturned where the uniform awards ignored the substantial differences among Plaintiffs, evidence satisfying the Vance standards for recovery of such damages was not presented, & the jury instruction permitted recovery for fear of cancer without any evidence of exposure to the alleged carcinogen or that the exposure made it "reasonably probable" that a Plaintiff would contract cancer? 6) Did CSA err in holding that the "fear of cancer" jury instruction was erroneous & prejudicial 7) Does MD law permit damages for medical monitoring & if so, may such damages be awarded where a) no Plaintiff claimed to have any current disease caused by exposure to contaminant, b) there was no proof that any Plaintiff had a significantly increased risk of developing any disease, & c) as to many Plaintiffs, there was no proof of exposure? 8) Is a new damages trial required when a jury's award of compensatory damages is not based on the Plaintiff's alleged injuries? 9) Did CSA violate CJP � 1-403(c) when it issued its in banc decisions without a "concurrence of a majority of the incumbent judges of the entire Court"? 10) Did CSA reach a majority vote of the sitting judges on the issue of medical monitoring and, if they did, was there error in holding that the evidence was insufficient to support an award for medical monitoring?
Edward Bruce Lowery, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Pines Plaza Limited Partnership v. Berkley Trace, LLC The Hampton Company, Inc. and James P. Joyce
Issues � Real Property � 1) Does MD law presume that an assignee of a real estate contract assumes the assignor's contractual obligations, unless the assignment expressly provides otherwise? 2) Is a person defending against an assigned claim entitled to setoff based on its claim against the assignor, even if it could not otherwise sue the assignee on that obligation? 3) Does MD adhere to the rule that a real estate contract clause, providing for automatic forfeiture of a deposit if closing does not occur by a specified date, is a "time is of the essence" clause?
AG No. 44 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gerald Frederick Chapman
Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baltimore v. Sylvester Dorsey
Issues � Labor & Employment � 1) Can the requirement that an employee's impairment must be "independent of any preexisting physical or medical condition, whether job-related or otherwise," be satisfied when the impairment is caused in part by a preexisting medical condition? 2) Did CSA err in deciding that appellee was qualified for line-of-duty disability retirement, when his impairment was the result of an asymptomatic, preexisting medical condition made symptomatic by a work-related injury?
Michael Lee Phillips, et al. v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery College
AG No. 50 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Stephen Rand
Benn Ray, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.
Reginald McCracken v. State of Maryland
State of Maryland v. John Wesley Ray
Maryland Insurance Commissioner v. Leon Kaplan
Issues - Insurance Law - 1) Did the Insurance Commissioner correctly find that ERISA does not preempt Md. Code Ann., Ins. �14-139, where there is no indication that Congress intended to preempt or supplant State efforts to protect assets of non-profit health insurers from depletion and where ERISA and �14-139 serve altogether different purposes? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that ERISA preempts any State regulatory action pursuant to �14-139 that affects the amount of any payment from an ERISA plan, even where the payment would be made out of corporate assets of the non-profit insurer? 3) Did the trial court err in failing to recognize that �14-139 regulates insurance & therefore is not preempted by ERISA?
100 Investment Limited Partnership, et al. v. Columbia Town Center Title Company, et al.
Issue - Taxation - Did the MD Tax Court correctly interpret Public Utilities Art. �� 7-524 & 7-548 when it rejected an adjustment to the taxable gross receipts of a public utility, where the franchise tax is imposed on the statutorily-defined gross receipts from the utility's electricity distribution charges, where the adjustment sought by the utility was based on a credit that offset the increased cost to consumers of electricity generation, & where the offset did not alter the revenue received by the utility from its distribution service?
Graylin Bernard Spence v. State of Maryland
WSG Holdings v. Larry Bowie, et al.
In the Matter of the Application of Dennis Alan Van Dusen for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
State of Maryland v. Latresha L. Weems
Ronald L. Powell, et al. v. Jeffrey R. Breslin, et al.
Issues - Tort Law - 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in precluding testimony from Petitioner’s expert witness on the grounds that the expert lacked qualifications and an adequate factual basis as to the source of Petitioner’s lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court correctly grant Respondent’s Motion of Summary Judgment & did CSA correctly decline to review that decision? 09-11-12
Veronica Tinsley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Kim Hodge v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
AG No. 86 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gerald Isadore Katz
Ramiro Arce Gonzalez v. State of Maryland
No. 125 (2011 Term)
John Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Angela Jones Kendall v. State of Maryland
Issue - Criminal Law - Was it error for the circuit court to deny motion seeking dismissal of the State�s appeal of the district court�s dismissal of the charges against Petitioner based on, inter alia, a claim of double jeopardy?
Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4 v. Baltimore County, Maryland
AG No. 35 (2011 Term)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Daniel Quinn Mahone
Eileen York v. Richard Hession
Warren Jerome Yates v. State of MarylandIssues - Criminal Law - 1) Is the admission of Petitioner's hearsay confession harmless error when the essential content of that confession was elsewhere properly admitted without objection? 2) Did CSA err in adopting the res gestae theory of second-degree felony murder in sustaining petitioner's conviction? 3) Did CSA abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise plain error review of the trial court's use of jury instructions consistent with MD Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction?
Demetrius Nickens v. Mount Vernon Realty Group, LLC, et al. Issues - Real Property - 1) Did CSA err in holding that the common law right of peaceable self-help permits a foreclosure purchaser to surreptitiously enter a residential property & change the locks while the resident is out? 2) Did CSA err in dismissing plaintiff's conversion claim, holding that plaintiff had abandoned all personal property in the residence, despite the complete absence of evidence that he intended to abandon it?