Last week, the Court of Appeals granted certiorari in four cases, including one bypass, to squarely address whether Maryland should adopt the Daubert standard for admitting expert testimony:
Jonathan Hemming v. State of Maryland – Case No. 48, September Term, 2019
(Unreported CSA Opinion by Wells, J.)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a trial court have discretion under Md. Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial? 2) Did the trial court mistakenly believe that it had no authority under Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial and, as a result, fail to exercise its discretion under the rule? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court recognized and exercised its discretion, was the court’s refusal to bifurcate the counts charging possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person and possession of ammunition by a disqualified person from the remaining counts of the indictment an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case?
The Court of Appeals today granted certiorari in one additional case. Also, on September 17, it docketed a certified question from the District of Maryland. The cases, with questions presented, are below. Read More…
In 2014, the General Assembly decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana; rather than being a crime, possessing less than 10 grams of marijuana is now a civil offense punishable by a fine.[1] Courts have been grappling with the effects of this change ever since. Most notably, since the possession of marijuana is no longer categorically a crime, courts have had to clarify the rules for whether the odor of marijuana still constitutes probable cause sufficient to justify a search or arrest. Several recent Court of Appeals decisions define the contours of the Fourth Amendment with respect to the odor of marijuana in a post-decriminalization world, and a recent cert grant seems poised to confirm Fourth Amendment limits on marijuana-related arrests. Read More…
The Maryland Court of Appeals today granted review in four criminal appeals, including two cases regarding writs of actual innocence; and two civil appeals, including a constitutional challenge to Baltimore’s regulation requiring food trucks to operate more than 300 feet from brick-and-mortar restaurants.
The grant list, including the questions presented and links to the opinions below, appears after the jump. Read More…
With the new term right around the corner, the Court of Appeals granted certiorari in nine cases, and the Court of Special Appeals certified questions of law in another one:
Darlene Barclay v. Sadie M. Castruccio – Case No. 30, September Term, 2019
(Unreported CSA Opinion by Nazarian, J.)
Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it ruled that the cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy is not a cause of action under Maryland law? 2) Did Petitioner adequately plead facts to succeed on a claim of intentional interference with an expectancy? Read More…
The Court of Appeals closed this week by granting certiorari in six cases, on issues including shelter care in CINA cases, insurance coverage, and tolling the Hicks Rule for DNA testing:
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari today in one additional civil case.
Gables Construction, Inc. v. Red Coats, Inc., et al.– Case No. 23, September Term, 2019 (Reported COSA opinion by Judge Wright)
Issue – Torts – As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in holding that a defendant can be liable for joint tortfeasor contribution even though it is not liable to the injured person in tort by virtue of a contractual waiver of claims covered by insurance?
By John Grimm
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will determine whether Congress can abrogate states’ sovereign immunity with respect to copyright infringement claims. Allen v. Cooper, No. 18-877. The case arises out of an underwater research expedition to document and salvage the wreck of Blackbeard’s ship off the coast of North Carolina. The salvage team alleges that, without permission, North Carolina published some of the team’s footage on the internet, violating its copyright in the footage.
On Friday, June 7th, the Court of Appeals granted the following writs of certiorari:
Credible Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Emmanuel Johnson – Case No. 19, September Term, 2019
(District Court Appeal, from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County)
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court erroneously apply Md. Rule 7-113(f) when it reviewed the district court’s construction of a contract’s terms for clear error rather than de novo? 2) Did the plain terms of the parties’ promissory note (“Note”) entitle Petitioner to a judgment against the Respondent? 3) In interpreting the Note, did Maryland law require the trial court to choose the one among two possible readings of the Note that was consistent with the parties’ intent?
The Court of Appeals today issued its first certiorari grants since Judge Brynja Booth took the bench last month. There were a total of five grants. They include a sequel to Comptroller v. Wynne, where in 2015 the Supreme Court, affirmed a Court of Appeals decision striking down portions of the state tax code as violating the “dormant” commerce clause. The cases are below, with the questions presented and links to the Court of Special Appeals opinions under review. Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 