March 2015 Maryland Certiorari Grants

Once again, it’s time for your friendly neighborhood certiorari grants. Sadly for this blog’s traffic, the Court of Appeals hasn’t heeded our bypass suggestions in Syed v. State. (Yet.) (Update: Probably because of this odd opinion.)

The grants, with questions presented, appear after the jump.

Granted March 27, 2015

Camhong An, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., et al. – Case No. 19, September Term, 2015

Issue – Torts –Md. law provides that negligent failure to warn includes all of the elements of strict liability failure to warn. Is a verdict finding a manufacturer liable for negligent failure to warn but not strict liability failure to warn fatally inconsistent, as the 4th Circuit held in Werner v. Upjohn Co.?

Timothy Everett Beall v. Connie Holloway-Johnson – Case No. 17, September Term, 2015

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the “malice implicit” in Petitioner’s actions could support an award of punitive damages, contrary to the long-established law that actual, not implied, malice is needed for an award of punitive damages? 2) Did CSA improperly modify the established definition of the “intent” needed to support claims for battery and for a physical contact in violation of Article 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, when it determined that the evidence was sufficient to present the claims to the jury? 3) Did CSA improperly conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24 when the record was devoid of facts to show intent on the part of Petitioner to cause a collision? 4) Did CSA err by affirming the judgment as to negligence but remanding for further proceedings on the claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24, thus allowing the pursuit of multiple recoveries of compensatory damages for the single claim arising from the collision? 5) Did Petitioner waive the damages cap and judgment avoidance afforded by the Local Government Tort Claims Act, having failed to raise the defense until after trial and entry of judgment?

Board of Education of Howard County v. Howard County Education Association-ESP, Inc. – Case No. 18, September Term, 2015

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Whether the Public Schools Labor Relations Board must apply the State Board of Education’s interpretation of statutes within its jurisdiction when exercising its authority to determine if a proposed subject of collective bargaining is illegal because it is precluded by statutory law? 2) Whether conflicting interpretations of the Education Article § 6-201(c)(1) and § 6-510(c)(1) can be reconciled?

Kathleen Clough v. Mayor & Council of Hurlock – Case No. 15, September Term, 2015

Issue – Labor & Employment – Does a town charter provision providing that key employees serve at the pleasure of the mayor prohibit the mayor from exercising his or her pleasure by offering a contract of employment to a key employee for a term of years in order to attract a qualified professional to serve in a rural area?

Corey Jones v. State of Maryland – Case No. 16, September Term, 2015

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the doctrine of laches barred Petitioner from seeking coram nobis relief? 2) Was Petitioner’s guilty plea neither knowing nor voluntary, where he was told that he was pleading guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute but a guilty plea was entered to the crime of use of a minor for the purpose of distributing a controlled dangerous substance and where the colloquy was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner understood the nature of the crime?

Manal Kiriakos v. Brandon Phillips – Case No. 20, September Term, 2015

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether the acts of Respondent establish a prima facie claim for negligence under fundamental tort principles? 2) Whether Md. should recognize a narrowly tailored definition of social host liability when an adult directly provides large amounts of alcohol to a teenager when the adult knows the teenager will soon drive?

Matthew D. Meyer v. State of Maryland – Case No. 21, September Term, 2015

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where (a) the defendant consents to the condition, or (b) the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch,” such as DUI? 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled?

State of Maryland v. Helen C. Rivera – Case No. 22, September Term, 2015

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense, such as DUI, subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch?” 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled to recognize the court’s broad authority in matters of sentencing and probation?

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: