January 2015 Link Round-Up

By Chris Mincher,

We here at the Maryland Appellate Blog know this isn’t the only place on the Web practitioners in the state are talking about appellate cases and issues. In addition to other sites of like-minded commentators, many law firms maintain blogs where appellate matters make frequent appearance. To bring these voices and topics into the larger discussion, we’ve begun a monthly roundup of posts by Maryland bar members that are relevant to appellate practice in the state.

Of course, we can only be as comprehensive as the material we come across — and we can use your help in staying on top of everything. This next month, if you’ve posted or read something that would be of interest to the Blog’s audience, shoot me a heads-up at cmincher@mdattorney.com for consideration in the next compilation. In the meantime, to get things started, here’s a small sampling of what popped up in January.

Jan. 13: Steve Lovejoy at Shumaker Williams summarized the recent Supreme Court decision in Jesinoski et ux. v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al., U.S. S. Ct., Oct. Term 2014, No. 13-684 (Jan. 13, 2015), which considered whether a borrower who wishes to enforce a right to rescind a mortgage loan pursuant to the federal Truth In Lending Act must, under the statute, file a lawsuit within three years after obtaining the loan. Check out his write-up here.

Jan. 16: Your humble narrator walks through a divided Court of Special Appeals panel’s differing opinions in Morse v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Md. Ct. Spec. App., Sept. Term 2013, No. 0511 (April 29, 2014), in advance of the Court of Appeals’ consideration later this year. In reviewing the court’s applying the “prejudice rule” to the state’s uninsured-motorist scheme, I question whether the majority’s analysis takes an unnecessary step too far, fault the dissent for failing to consider legislative history, and suggest a possible harmonious operation of the rule within the statutory framework.

Jan. 21: Alexander Berg at Kollman & Saucier discussed the recent Supreme Court oral arguments in Mach Mining v. EEOC, U.S. S. Ct., No. 13-1019, at which the justices debated federal courts’ ability to review the EEOC’s conciliation efforts prior to initiating litigation against an employer. Head here for his rundown of the comments, concerns, and possible solutions expressed by the justices during the argument.

Jan. 27: Jessica Butkera at Rollins, Smalkin, Richards & Mackie recaps the outcome of Gineene Williams et al. v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, et al., Md. Ct. App., Sept. Term 2014, No. 18 (Nov. 21, 2014), a case interpreting a state statute providing immunity to various entities in regards to the involuntary admission of a patient to a healthcare facility for treatment. Approving of the court’s conclusion that healthcare facilities are immune from lawsuit even when deciding not to involuntarily admit patients, Butkera believes that the decision “strengthens the ability of doctors to and nurses to make decisions based on what is medically appropriate rather than based upon fear of liability.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: