July 2025 Maryland Certiorari Grants

Today the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in three civil appeals and one criminal appeal.

Baltimore XV Properties LLC v. Newsteps’ Choice North Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. – Case No. 24, September Term, 2025 (Certiorari to Circuit Court)
Issue – Real Property – May a judgment creditor, after levy, execution and sheriff’s sale of the judgment debtor’s real property to a third-party purchaser, divest the sheriff’s sale purchaser of the purchaser’s interest in the property by accepting payment of the judgment in full from the judgment debtor and seek to have the sheriff’s sale canceled and the judgment entered as satisfied?

Brian S. Spicuzza v. State of Maryland – Case No. 25, September Term, 2025 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Nazarian)
Petition and conditional cross-petition both granted.
Issues – Criminal Law – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Does Maryland allow impeachment with prior inconsistent statements, or other “direct” attacks on a witness’s veracity, to be rebutted with evidence of the witness’s truthful character? 2) Should the petitioner’s character witnesses have been permitted to testify to his truthfulness under Md. Rules 5-608(a)(2)? 3) Does the opening-the-door doctrine apply to the otherwise-improper “why-would-they-lie” question? 4) Does an appellate court violate N. River Ins. Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 343 Md. 34 (1996), when it exercises discretion in the first instance to affirm a trial court’s evidentiary ruling? From the conditional cross-petition for writ of certiorari: 1) Did ACM incorrectly conclude that Petitioner’s continuing objection during one witness’s testimony to “all of her testimony that was subject to the 404(b) hearing with respect to sex” preserve his arguments concerning the testimony of a different witness and topics other than sex? 2) Did ACM wrongly conclude that the two different witnesses’ testimony concerning Petitioner’s uncharged conduct was not admissible as common scheme evidence?

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Theresa Abel, et al. – Case No. 26, September Term, 2025 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge James Eyler)
Issues – Torts – 1) Did ACM err when it held that, for the purposes of establishing private nuisance liability, the reasonableness of defendants’ use of defendants’ land is determined solely by the significance of the interference with plaintiffs’ right to use plaintiff’s land? 2) Did ACM err when it held that for the purposes of establishing private nuisance liability, the requirement of continuousness or recurrence of the things, facts, or acts, which constitute the nuisance was met under the circumstances of this case? 3) Did ACM err when it held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support private nuisance liability against the City for a single one-day sewer backup in the plaintiffs’ basement in 2019?

State of Maryland, et al. v. Michael Young – Case No. 27, September Term, 2025 (Reported ACM Opinion by Judge Berger)
Issues – State Government – 1) Did ACM err in deciding that the attack on Respondent by fellow inmates comprised two separate “incidents” or “occurrences” within the meaning of the Maryland Tort Claims Act, thus exposing the State to liability of $800,000 rather than $400,000? 2) Did ACM err in affirming the judgments against individual State personnel as “enforceable” against the State, rather than vacating and directing entry of judgment against the State? 3) Did ACM err in holding that Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450 (2011), applies to the State, where that case approved of pattern-or-practice liability only for local governments?