January 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in one criminal and two civil appeals. The certiorari grants, with links to the Appellate Court of Maryland opinions under review, are below.
Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, Gershman & Freedman, P.A., and Mark E. Rapson v. Parkway Neuroscience and Spine Institute, LLC – Case No. 30, September Term, 2022
(Reported ACM Opinion by Judge Adkins)
Issue – Maryland Rules – Did ACM err in finding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on lost profits?
Jonathan D. Smith v. State of Maryland – Case No. 31, September Term, 2022
(Reported ACM Opinion by Judge Graeff)
Issue – Criminal Law – Does the State’s two-decade long pattern of intentional, willful, and/or reckless misconduct, including widespread suppression of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and knowing false statements, mandate dismissal with prejudice under the Due Process Clause? A. Did the lower courts apply an erroneous standard and/or err in their evaluation of the prejudice suffered by Petitioner? B. Did the lower courts apply an erroneous standard and/or err in their determination that there was a less drastic alternative remedy to dismissal with prejudice?
Comptroller of Maryland v. Comcast of California/Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia/West Virginia, LLC., et al. – Case No. 32, September Term, 2022
Issues – Taxation – 1) Does the remedial scheme in Tax-General (“Tax-Gen.”) Title 13, including an express prohibition against judicial interference in tax assessment and collection, Tax-Gen. § 13-505, preclude taxpayers from bringing a court challenge to the constitutionality of the digital ad tax before exhausting administrative remedies? If not: 2) Did the trial court err in declaring that the Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause, where the Act’s plain language ensures that it taxes only revenue earned in Maryland, in fair proportion to a taxpayer’s economic activity in the State, and the Act applies equally to Maryland-based and out-of-state businesses? 3) Did the trial court err in declaring that the Act violates the First Amendment, where it satisfies the criteria in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Dept. of Finance of Baltimore City, 472 Md. 444 (2021), and the Act does not disfavor but instead benefits the press? 4) Did the trial court err in declaring that the digital advertising tax violates the Supremacy Clause and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, 47 U.S.C. §151 (“ITFA”), where the Supreme Court has held that the Supremacy Clause does not give rise to any right of action, Congress has not authorized a private right of action or remedy to enforce the ITFA, which lacks a feature needed for preemption, and the Act does not conflict with the ITFA? 5) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment when there remained genuine disputes of material fact?