October 2024 Maryland Certiorari Grants

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in two civil cases and one criminal case.

Janice Hollabaugh v. MRO Corporation – Case No. 27, September Term, 2024 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Chief Judge Wells)
Issues – Fees – 1) Whether under Maryland’s Confidentiality of Medical Records Act (CMRA), § 4-304 of the Health General Article, the ACM erred in holding that respondent is permitted to charge a “reasonable cost-based fee” for “retrieval and preparation” of requested medical records, when respondent had no medical records to retrieve, produce or copy? 2) May the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint be affirmed on the alternative ground that she lacks standing under the CMRA because any claim would have to belong to her attorneys who requested her records and were required to pay the allegedly unauthorized fee?

James Russell Trimble v. State of Maryland – Case No. 28, September Term, 2024 (Reported ACM Opinion by Judge Getty)
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) In light of the General Assembly’s recognition of the mitigating features of youth when enacting the Juvenile Restoration Act, may a circuit court deciding a motion for sentence reduction under § 8-110 of the Criminal Procedure (CP) Article treat “the individual’s age at the time of the offense” as an aggravating factor because the movant was 17 years and approximately 8 months old at the time of the offense? 2) In light of the General Assembly’s intent that CP § 8-110 provide people who were minors at the time of a crime a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” did the Appellate Court err in holding that a defendant’s maturity and rehabilitation was not entitled to any greater weight than any of the other ten statutory factors? 3) Did the circuit court err in dismissing extensive evidence of rehabilitation because the petitioner was diagnosed with a psychological disorder?

Maryland Indoor Play, LLC,  et al. v. Snowden Investment LLC – Case No. 29, September Term, 2024 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Beachley)
Issues – Contract Law – 1) Did the ACM expand the right of first refusal by holding that a breach of the right can be established without proof that the buyer was ready, willing, and able to act on it. 2) Did the ACM create and apply a new measure of general damages for breach of contract by allowing the non-breaching party to recover damages measured by the “fair value” as determined years after the alleged breach occurred.