Amalgamated Transit v. Loveless – Judicial Imposition of Procedural and Remedial Due Process in Private Relationships
In a host of private, essentially, contractual arrangements that nevertheless affect important or broad public interests, parties provide for procedures and remedies for the resolution of disputes between them. Examples include hospital credentialing of doctors or grants of hospital privileges, labor relations in industries ranging from the entertainment arts, to sports, to the skilled trades, and trade and professional competency certifications by trade and professional associations. In most cases, the source of the public interest is ultimately one of economics. Association credentialing and certification, for example, apart from often being critical to one’s ability to engage in a business or profession and, thereby, earn a living, also can substantially affect competition—where, for example, credentialing or certification programs are operated as barriers to entry. Another important interest is the country’s unquenchable thirst for live sports. As a consequence, player rights and labor disputes, franchise ownership and franchise location issues, particularly where these issues affect the availability or quality of sporting events, garner considerable public attention. Read More…
The Court of Appeals website shows the following April 18, 2014 grants of certiorari:
Marcus Lee Smiley v. State of Maryland – Case No. 37, September Term, 2014
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting the prior recorded statement of an unavailable witness after finding that Petitioner procured the witness’s unavailability at trial? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress an extrajudicial identification of Petitioner where his photograph was one of only two in a photographic array which was not visibly altered and his clothing matched the shooter’s described attire? 3) Should MD adopt, either as a matter of State constitutional or evidentiary law, a standard for evaluating the admissibility of eyewitness identifications which better reflects present scientific knowledge concerning eyewitness memory?
State of Maryland v. Gregory Graves – Case No. 36, September Term, 2014
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in determining that § 8-401 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which was enacted while Respondent’s appeal was pending, applies retroactively to Respondent’s case? 2) If § 8-401 applies retroactively, is the appropriate remedy a remand and not a reversal?
By Michael Wein
I’m sure there are some Maryland attorneys who, like me, look forward to receiving a hardcopy of the two-volume Maryland Rules from Lexis annually around Christmas. The hardcopy is supposed to catalogue the most updated Rules. Unfortunately, it appears that the new Rules from the late November 2013 Court of Appeals meeting, which took effect on January 1, 2014, were omitted. Therefore as a courtesy, I am reiterating that readers, before filing their certiorari, merits, or amici briefs, should review the actual Rules that took effect on January 1. Read More…
Today, in Antonio v. SSA Sec. Inc., — F.3d — (4th Cir. 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit certified the following question to the Court of Appeals of Maryland:
Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?
The factual and legal background appears in the Fourth Circuit’s decision, available here. The Court of Appeals presumably will calendar the case for argument during the September 2014 Term.
We previously reported in January that the Supreme Court of the United States requested the views of the Solicitor General of the United States as to whether to grant certiorari in Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147 (2013). As reported today by Steve Lash at The Daily Record, the Solicitor General has filed a brief in support of the State’s petition.
Inconspicuously placed at the conclusion of Fourth Circuit Local Rule 34(a) is a provision that “parties may include in their briefs at the conclusion of the argument a statement setting forth the reasons why, in their opinion, oral argument should be heard.” Forget the word “may.” The Local Rule 34(a) statement is, I submit, the most important part of an appellant’s brief. Read More…