One Month to Go, Only Seven Cases Left! (With One Potential Blockbuster)
By Michael Wein
[EIC’s Update, 8/27/2014: The Court this morning decided Kulbicki, along with Spacesaver, and Brooks. It decided Raynor this afternoon.]
[EIC’s Update, 8/18/2014: The Court has since decided Chesapeake Bay, Peters, and NIHC. We’re still waiting on Spacesaver, Raynor, Brooks, and, notably, Kulbicki.]
As a follow up on previous posts by myself and members of this Blog, the Court of Appeals, under the helm of Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbara, appears to be smoothly finishing work for the remaining cases from the 2013 Term by the self-imposed deadline of August 31, 2014. Per the handy “Pending Cases” link on the Court of Appeals’ website, discussed previously here, only seven cases from the term remain on the Court of Appeals’ docket. Read More…
July 2014 Maryland Certiorari Grants
Ta-da! A new batch of cert grants to get you through the dog days of summer. Check out this sundry lineup of cases — including one on warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest, a topic that’s all the rage these days in criminal procedure — after the jump.
June 2014 Maryland Certiorari Grants
The Court of Appeals website is listing four June 18, 2014 certiorari grants. The cases, listed after the jump, include authentication of Facebook posts at trial. Read More…
Supreme Court to Review Maryland Tax Case
This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147 (2013). The Order list is here. For prior blog coverage of Comptroller v. Wynne, see the following posts:
Maryland Certiorari Grants, May 2014
The Court of Appeals website reflects that the Court has granted merits review in two cases. Not listed below are six cases for which the website does not reflect the questions presented. The fact that all six have been assigned September 2013 Term docket numbers, combined with the lack of a question presented, suggests that the Court is taking summary action on those six cases or consolidating them with a case pending this term.
Alan Sternstein previously posted on this blog regarding the Court of Special Appeals decision in one of the two cases, Espina. The questions presented in the two new certiorari grants to be argued next term are:
Estela Espina, et al. v. Steven Jackson, et al. – Case No. 35, September Term, 2014
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Can the General Assembly contravene or restrict by statute self-executing rights in the state constitution? 2) Does the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA) encompass and serve to cap self-executing constitutional rights? 3) With 96.5% of the verdict stripped from the petitioners, is the application of the LGTCA damages cap to the facts here unconstitutional under Art. 19? 4) Did CSA err in applying the LGTCA cap to the constitutional deprivations here after the jury found malice and the County stipulated to scope of employment? 5) Did CSA err in holding that all wrongful death claims are reduced to one claim?
David Payne, et ux. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, et al. – Case No. 38, September Term, 2014
Issue – Insurance Law – Under Maryland Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Kornke, et al., 21 Md.App. 178, 319 A.2d 603 (1974) and its progeny, did the trial court err in holding that Erie was not required to provide coverage to a second permittee using an insured’s car within the named insured’s original grant of permissive use?
Court of Appeals to Address Standing to Challenge Legislative Comprehensive Zoning Enactments
Last year, the Court of Appeals addressed standing requirements for challenging zoning and land use decisions, issuing opinions significantly shaping the standards for standing. See Kendall v. Howard Cnty., 431 Md. 590, 66 A.3d 684 (2013); Ray v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74, 59 A.3d 545 (2013). This year, the Court is poised to do so again. On March 21, 2014, the Court granted certiorari in Anne Arundel Cnty. v. Bell, 437 Md. 422, 86 A.3d 1274 (2014) to consider these three issues: Read More…
Amalgamated Transit v. Loveless – Judicial Imposition of Procedural and Remedial Due Process in Private Relationships
In a host of private, essentially, contractual arrangements that nevertheless affect important or broad public interests, parties provide for procedures and remedies for the resolution of disputes between them. Examples include hospital credentialing of doctors or grants of hospital privileges, labor relations in industries ranging from the entertainment arts, to sports, to the skilled trades, and trade and professional competency certifications by trade and professional associations. In most cases, the source of the public interest is ultimately one of economics. Association credentialing and certification, for example, apart from often being critical to one’s ability to engage in a business or profession and, thereby, earn a living, also can substantially affect competition—where, for example, credentialing or certification programs are operated as barriers to entry. Another important interest is the country’s unquenchable thirst for live sports. As a consequence, player rights and labor disputes, franchise ownership and franchise location issues, particularly where these issues affect the availability or quality of sporting events, garner considerable public attention. Read More…
Maryland Certiorari Grants, April 2014
The Court of Appeals website shows the following April 18, 2014 grants of certiorari:
Marcus Lee Smiley v. State of Maryland – Case No. 37, September Term, 2014
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting the prior recorded statement of an unavailable witness after finding that Petitioner procured the witness’s unavailability at trial? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress an extrajudicial identification of Petitioner where his photograph was one of only two in a photographic array which was not visibly altered and his clothing matched the shooter’s described attire? 3) Should MD adopt, either as a matter of State constitutional or evidentiary law, a standard for evaluating the admissibility of eyewitness identifications which better reflects present scientific knowledge concerning eyewitness memory?
State of Maryland v. Gregory Graves – Case No. 36, September Term, 2014
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in determining that § 8-401 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which was enacted while Respondent’s appeal was pending, applies retroactively to Respondent’s case? 2) If § 8-401 applies retroactively, is the appropriate remedy a remand and not a reversal?
Fourth Circuit Certifies Question to Maryland Court of Appeals
Today, in Antonio v. SSA Sec. Inc., — F.3d — (4th Cir. 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit certified the following question to the Court of Appeals of Maryland:
Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?
The factual and legal background appears in the Fourth Circuit’s decision, available here. The Court of Appeals presumably will calendar the case for argument during the September 2014 Term.
Maryland Certiorari Grants, March 2014
The Court of Appeals today granted certiorari in six cases. The text from the Court’s website is below:
Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al. v. Steve Bell, et al.– Case No. 29, September Term, 2014
Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether noise from a predicted increase in traffic constitutes “special damages”?
Falls Garden Condominium Association, Inc. v. Falls Homeowners Association, Inc.– Case No. 30, September Term, 2014
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Whether it was error to enforce the Letter of Intent given the parties never intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent and the Letter of Intent does not contain all material terms? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to hold a full plenary hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement since the existence of a binding and enforceable agreement was contested and there were contradicting proffers regarding a material issue, i.e. whether the parties intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent?
Carol Jane Gray, et al. v. Howard County Board of Elections, et al.– Case No. 107, September Term, 2013
Issues – Election Law – 1) Was the Board of Elections’ determination that the referendum summary was not “fair and accurate” is arbitrary, capricious and illegal as a matter of law? 2) Is the referendum summary as presented “fair and accurate” as required by EL § 6-201(c)(2)(i)?
Metro Maintenance Systems South, Inc. v. Thomas Milburn, et al.– Case No. 31, September Term, 2014
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in its decision that the lower court’s remand order was not a “final judgment” as defined by CJP § 12-301? 2) Did the lower court act arbitrarily and capriciously in remanding a final administrative decision to the processes of an administrative agency without conducting any record review and without any finding of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, cognizable defect, intervening factors or subsequent events? 3) Did CSA properly decide Anne Arundel County v. Rode, 214 Md.App. 702 (2013), and properly apply that ruling to the procedural circumstances in this case?
In the Matter of Carol Jane Gray, et al.– Case No. 106, September Term, 2013
Issue – Election Law – Within the context of the decision-making required by EL § 6-208(a)(2), was the Board of Elections’ determination that the referendum summary was not “fair and accurate” arbitrary, capricious and illegal as a matter of law?
State of Maryland v. Charles William Callahan – Case No. 28, September Term, 2014
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the lower court violated the doctrine of the separation of powers in finding respondent in violation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with a lawful order of his probation agent where the order was a requirement of his mandatory parole release conditions? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the lower court erred in revoking Callahan’s probation?
Maryland Appellate Blog 