Businesses often desire the certainty and predictability of rules expressed in stark, absolute terms. But as the Court of Special Appeals recently reminded us, some legal questions are not best answered with black‑and‑white tests, but instead must often sort out facts that appear in various shades of gray. In Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. v. Andrews, Sept. Term 2014, No. 935 (Oct. 1, 2015), the Court rejected a judgment creditor’s effort to garnish a bank account jointly owned by the judgment debtor and refused to adopt the per se rule urged by the creditor.
By Michael Wein
Last week, as noted by Blog Editor-in-Chief Steve Klepper, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a short four-page summary reversal of the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision in Kulbicki v. State. The reversal followed three relists for the case at the end of the last term, a circumstance I covered in a post in June. Both posts noted a likelihood of some written decision being issued, either a summary reversal or an opinion regarding denial of certiorari.
As indicated in the applicants list posted on the Maryland Judicial Vacancies website yesterday, more than 25 candidates have lined up to jockey for Judge Zarnoch’s seat on the Court of Special Appeals. As to be expected, there is remarkable variety in the group, from current sitting judges to esteemed public servants to distinguished private practitioners to versatile legal minds who have done a bit of it all. Below is the lineup with the applicants’ web pages and current gigs; from what we could briefly scrape off those pages – which is obviously limited by the availability of public bios and the information on them – we also cobbled some numbers to demonstrate the diversity of experience among this round of bench-seekers.
Back in August, Jonathan Biran posted on this blog regarding the Fourth Circuit’s split decision in United States v. Graham on warrantless requests for cell-site location information. The Government proceeded to petition for en banc rehearing (petition available here) last month, and the Fourth Circuit ordered a response. Read More…
Today the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling summarily reversing the four-to-three Court of Appeals decision in Kulbicki v. State, 440 Md. 33 (2014). Interestingly, the Supreme Court never issued an order calling up the state court record (see, for instance, the docket in Martinez v. Illinois) – even though Maryland is not a state where the record is available online.
It took the Supreme Court just 4½ pages to unanimously reverse. Read More…