December 2019 Maryland Certiorari Grants

Happy holidays from the Maryland Appellate Blog! Yesterday, the Court of Appeals granted review in three criminal cases and five civil cases. One of the civil cases, MIA v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., centers on uninsured motorist coverage and will be consolidated with a certified question raising the same issue.

75-80 Properties, LLC, et al. v. Rale, Inc., et al. – Case No. 59, September Term, 2019 (Reported CSA Opinion by Arthur, J.)

Issues – General Provisions – 1) On a petition for judicial review of land use approvals, must the reviewing court evaluate an ex parte violation through the narrow lens of “procedural error”, as expressly prescribed by Md. Code (2014) §§ 5-859 and 5-862 of the General Provisions (“GP”) Article? 2) On a petition for judicial review, may a court vacate county approvals, including an executed Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (“DRRA”), based solely on the County’s violation of GP §5-862, when the statute expressly provides that the only remedy in the land use context is remand? 3) Does zoning estoppel apply where developers, acting in good faith, substantially relied on, and partially performed under, fully-vetted county approvals and an executed DRRA, and the misconduct stems solely from the government’s actions?

Pablo Javier Aleman v. State of Maryland – Case No. 60, September Term, 2019 (Reported CSA Opinion by Gould, J.)

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Md. Code (2018 Repl. Vol.) §3- 112 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which requires the commitment to the Department of Health of a defendant found not criminally responsible, does not apply to a defendant who is in Maryland under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Md. Code (2017 Repl. Vol) §8-401 et seq. of the Correctional Services Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the IAD requires that Petitioner, who was found not criminally responsible by a Maryland jury, must be returned to the sending state to complete a sentence in that state? 3) Did CSA err in holding that § 8-408 of the IAD, which states that “[n]o provision of this Agreement. . . shall apply to any person who is adjudged to be mentally ill,” was not triggered by the jury’s verdict that Petitioner was not criminally responsible?

Shawn Albert Franklin v. State of Maryland – Case No. 57, September Term, 2019 (Unreported CSA Opinion by Friedman, J.)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is it ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel to include in a timely filed motion for modification of sentence a request for a hearing accompanied by a request that the matter be held sub curia but to never secure an actual hearing on that motion in court in the ensuing five years as required by Md. Rule 4-345(e) in order to have the sentence actually modified? 2) Is a finding that it does not constitute ineffective assistance inconsistent with CSA’s decision in Moultrie v. State, 240 Md.App. 408 (2019)?

In re: R.S. – Case No. 58, September Term, 2019 (Reported CSA Opinion by Friedman, J.)

Issues – Family Law – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Md. Code (2019 Repl. Vol.) § 5-601 – 5-611 of the Family Law Article (“ICPC”), and invalidating COMAR 07.02.11.28, based on the holding that the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state parents, even those unknown to the child and local department or who have abused or neglected a child, and therefore the ICPC cannot be used in a CINA proceeding to assist juvenile courts in protecting a child’s best interests where a parent resides in another state? 2) Did CSA err in reversing both the juvenile court’s order that R.S. was a CINA and the award of joint custody of R.S. to her father and paternal grandparents, based on the holding that the juvenile court should not have ordered an investigation under the ICPC of a non-custodial father who had never met the two-year old child?

Maryland Insurance Administration v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. – Case No. 63, September Term, 2019 (On Bypass)

Issue – Insurance – Does the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code (2017) § 19-509(e)(1) of the Insurance Article, and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article incorporated therein, require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance?

Motor Vehicle Administration, et al. v. Karl Geppert – Case No. 61, September Term, 2019 (Unreported CSA Opinion by Gould, J.)

Issues – Transportation – 1) Did CSA lack jurisdiction to consider Respondents challenge to Petitioner’s refusal to issue him a learner’s permit where Md. Code (2014) §10-223(a) of the State Government Article excluded from that court’s jurisdiction cases “aris[ing] under Title 16 of the Transportation Article” – the Article governing issuance of learner’s permits? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that a circuit court possess the authority to order an executive agency to perform an act that is directly contrary to Maryland law?

Saint Luke Institute, Inc. v. Andre Jones – Case No. 62, September Term, 2019 (Reported CSA Opinion by Shaw Geter, J.)

Issues – Health General – 1) Does Petitioner have standing to raise the constitutional right of privacy on behalf of a mental health patient? 2) If Petitioner has the requisite standing, must the court first determine whether the constitutional right of privacy of the person whose records are sought has been superseded prior to any release of mental health records or can the court immediately proceed to the question of release without first finding that the right of privacy has been superseded? 3) If the constitutional right of privacy is required to be ruled upon by the court to determine if it has been superseded, then what are the standards to be applied by the court when a private party litigant rather than a state agency is making the request? 4) If the determination is made that records may be released, does the party requesting the release of mental health records have the burden of identifying to the court the nature of the information being sought for release from the mental health records prior to the court undertaking its in camera review?

State of Maryland v. Muriel Morrison – Case No. 56, September Term, 2019 (Unreported CSA Opinion by Nazarian, J.)

Issue – Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Respondent was guilty of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment in the death of her infant beyond a reasonable doubt?

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: