May 2024 Maryland Certiorari Grants

Last week was an unusually busy week for Maryland certiorari grants. On May 28 and 31, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in six civil cases and one criminal case. Two are among the four cases to be argued on September 10 regarding the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023.

Greenmark Properties, LLC v. Parts, Inc., et al. – Case No. 6, September Term, 2024 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Tang)
Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a contract to sell the only asset of a corporation valid if the contract is signed by the sole shareholder still living at the time of the contract and who held in person or by proxy the right to vote the majority of shares in any business decision, but where the sale was not approved by the personal representative of the estates that held title to the majority of the stock? 2) Is a contract to sell the only asset of the corporation void ab initio because the sale was not approved by the corporation’s shareholders in compliance with § 3-105 of the Corporations and Associations Article? 3) Did the ACM correctly determine that petitioner failed to preserve the issue of its standing to challenge the validity of the second contract under §§ 1-403 and 3-105 of the Corporations and Associations Article?

Moira E. Akers v. State of Maryland – Case No. 7, September Term, 2024 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Ripken)
Issue – Criminal Law – Is evidence of a pregnant woman’s forgoing prenatal care or evidence of a pregnant woman’s conducting Internet searches about terminating the pregnancy relevant as a matter of law to show the woman’s intent to kill the newborn at birth, or if marginally relevant, unfairly prejudicial?

In re: M.Z. – Case No. 8, September Term, 2024 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Chief Judge Wells)
Issue – Family Law – When a court terminates jurisdiction in a CINA case over the objection of a parent, is the parent “aggrieved” by that court’s unfavorable judgment such that the parent is entitled to appeal?

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. John Doe, et al. – Case No. 9, September Term, 2024 (Bypass Review)
Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws Ch. 5 (S.B. 686) (codified at Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?

Board of Education of Harford County v. John Doe – Case No. 10, September Term, 2024 (Bypass Review)
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws Ch. 5 (S.B. 686) (codified at Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117)(the “MCVA”), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution? 2) As a subdivision of the State, see Bd. Of Educ. v. Sec’y of Personnel, 317 Md. 34, 44-45 (1989), does the petitioner have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the MCVA?

Homer Walton, et al. v. Premier Soccer Club, Inc., et al. – Case No. 11, September Term, 2024 (Reported ACM Opinion by Judge Deborah Eyler)
Issue – Torts – Did ACM properly affirm the trial court’s ruling that a violation of Md. Code Health General Article § 14-501 (concussion policy and awareness) could not be the proximate cause of a concussion injury as a matter of law notwithstanding that the injured person was within the class of persons – youth athletes – that the statute was intended to protect and the injury was the type of injury the statue was designed to prevent?

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Jamie Wallace – Case No. 12, September Term, 2024 (Reported ACM Opinion by Judge Shaw)
Issues – Natural Resources – 1) Did ACM err when it held that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, Md. Code, Natural Resources § 5-1101, et seq., (“MRUS”) does not apply to paths in public parks, even where a local government has made the path available for recreational use? 2) Did ACM err when it held that Haley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269 (1956), applies to any path that may serve as a “public connector” between parts of the City, so that any such path in a public park is not subject to MRUS protections?