August 2017 Maryland Certiorari Grants

The Court of Appeals posted a batch of August 28 certiorari grants, but we were waiting for the questions presented to appear on the Court’s site before we did a post. They’re up, and they’re interesting. Question 1 in Seaborne-Worsely, for example, involves a bar-exam-type hypothetical on the operation of Maryland’s contributory negligence rule; it looks like the Court of Appeals took the case on bypass review. State v. Brookman (COSA opinion here) features a variety of appellate procedure questions arising out of Drug Court proceedings. Rodriguez v. Cooper (COSA opinion here) is on its second trip to the Court of Appeals, which in 2015 reinstated a jury finding of gross negligence against a corrections officer in charge of prison transport bus during one inmate’s murder of another. This time, the question is whether the cap on noneconomic damages applies.

The complete list of grants appears after the jump.

Melissa Rodriguez, et al. v. Larry Cooper, et al. – Case No. 27, September Term, 2017

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err in applying the cap on non-economic damages under Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. § 11-108? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to enter judgment against the State?

Victoria Seaborne-Worsely v. Jeffrey Mintiens – Case No. 26, September Term, 2017

Issues – Torts – 1) In an automobile collision case, can the negligence of a permissive driver be imputed to a sole-owner passenger who is seeking recovery for injuries caused by a negligent third-party driver? 2) Was the non-party driver’s negligent parking a proximate cause of the accident?

State of Maryland v. Crystal Brookman; State of Maryland v. Marvin Randy Carnes – Case No. 29, September Term, 2017

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Do sanctions, imposed by a trial court in conjunction with participation in the problem-solving Drug Court programs in Respondents’ criminal cases, not constitute court action subject to appellate review where there is no finding of a violation of probation? 2) If properly before CSA for review, did the trial court properly impose the Drug Court menu sanctions provided for in Respondents’ cases for Respondents’ respective violations of the conditions of their Drug Court participation? 3) Is this controversy moot? 4) Does Rule 16-206(e) permit a drug court to impose a sanction involving the loss of a defendant’s liberty in violation of the drug court agreement? 5) Is a Drug Court sanction involving a loss of liberty imposed in violation of the protocols of Rule 16-206(e) and the drug court agreement a reviewable judgment pursuant to an application for leave to appeal?

State of Maryland v. Neiswanger Management Services LLC et al. – Case No. 28, September Term, 2017

Issues – Health – 1) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen. § 19-345.3 authorizes a court to grant “injunctive relief” to remedy violations of the discharge-related provisions of the Patient’s Bill of Rights, the statute does not authorize “broad injunctive relief” barring “company practices” that violate those provisions? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that, although Health-Gen.§ 19-344 confers responsibility on the Attorney General for “enforcement” of certain of its provisions, it does not authorize the Attorney General to seek, or a court to grant, a judicial injunction enforcing those provisions?