Maryland High Court Grants Rapid Review of Underage Drinking Liability
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
Update (9/8/2015): I have since learned that the grant in Davis v. Stapf was not an “own motion” grant. Rather, before the Court of Special Appeals filed its opinion, the plaintiff filed a petition asking the Court of Appeals to consider Davis v. Stapf along with a similar case (Manal Kiriakos v. Brandon Phillips, Case No. 20, September Term, 2015) where certiorari was granted in March. Still, it remains interesting that the Davis v. Stapf opinion prompted the Court of Appeals to grant certiorari outside of its normal conference schedule.
Yesterday saw unusual and fast action by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in a major case on liability for serving alcohol to minors. In an August 26 opinion in Davis v. Stapf, the Court of Special Appeals ruled against the estate of a 17-year-old passenger killed in an auto accident following a party. The decedent, who riding in the bed of a pickup truck, and the 22-year-old driver were both intoxicated. The panel majority (in an opinion by Judge Graeff and joined by Chief Judge Krauser) found that the party’s host, who served the minor alcohol in violation of Criminal Law § 10-117(b), owed no statutory duty of care to the minor that could result in tort liability. Judge Nazarian concurred, believing that the fact the minor was not the driver cut the chain of causation.
Yesterday, just eight days after the CSA’s opinion, the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued a single grant of certiorari, outside its normal schedule: Read More…
Three Names Forwarded for Seat on Maryland High Court
The Maryland Courts website shows that the Judicial Nominating Commission has forwarded three nominees to Governor Hogan for the Prince George’s County seat on the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The nominees are: Read More…
One Week, Four Court of Appeals Cases, One Potential Blockbuster
By Michael Wein,
Well, we’re one week away until the Maryland Court of Appeals’ self-imposed deadline of Monday, August 31, 2015, for deciding all cases in the September Term. Per the “Pending Cases” page on the Court of Appeals’ website, four, count that, only four, decisions are left, one from April (State v. Dykes), one from May (State v. Waine), and two from June (State v. Westray and Wicomico County Department of Social Services v. B.A.). The two from June may not reflect any particular disagreements between the judges, but are pending simply because they were the most recently argued, or, in the case of Westray, because it will be decided in tandem with the Dykes case from April, as both involve issues about the right to discharge counsel. The “Questions Presented,” as posed on the Court of Appeals’ web page, for all remaining cases are listed below.
August 2015 Certiorari Grants
Summer’s winding down, and the Court of Appeals is getting back into high gear with 10 new certiorari grants. Hint: If you’re as interested in this case even a fraction as much as Alan Sternstein has been, you’re going to want to check out the full rundown after the jump.
Fourth Circuit cell-site info decision creates circuit split
On August 5, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Graham, a Hobbs Act robbery case originating in the District of Maryland. Although the Appellants raised several challenges to their convictions, the most interesting issue was whether the Court should extend Fourth Amendment protections to records about where and when a mobile phone connected to antennas and electronic communications equipment on a cellular network, data called “cell-site location information” (CSLI). Senior Judge Andre Davis, one of the Fourth Circuit judges from Maryland, wrote the majority opinion, holding that users of cellphones have a reasonable expectation of privacy in historical CSLI, at least where such information covers an extensive period of time. Judge Davis was joined by Judge Thacker in that conclusion. One of the other Maryland judges on the Court, Judge Diana Motz, dissented from that portion of the majority opinion.
Montgomery County v. Fraternal Order of Police – Government’s Role at the Ballot Box: Round II
In an article here in January, I wrote about the doctrine of official or government speech. The post was prompted by the appeal pending in Montgomery County v. Fraternal Order of Police, Md. Ct. Spec. App., No. 175, which was decided by the Court of Special Appeals in April. Slip Op. (decided Apr. 3, 2015).[1] The court’s decision reversed, among other things, the Circuit Court’s ruling that the Appellants, Montgomery County and certain of its officials, had acted beyond their power and authority by making substantial use of public funds and resources to campaign in a general-election referendum in favor of legislation that the County Council had passed and that the County Executive had signed into law. According to the Circuit Court’s “Findings of Fact,” Appellants had unlawfully “engaged in electioneering and conducted a political campaign.” Id. at 11.
July 2015 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On the heels of its eight(!) published opinions today, the Court of Appeals of Maryland released its July 2015 certiorari grants. There are only four grants, three of which involve disputes with the Maryland Department of the Environment. The cases, with questions presented, appear after the jump. Read More…
Non-Mutual Collateral Estoppel: A Shield, but is it a Sword?
Traditionally, the preclusive effects of res judicata and collateral estoppel applied only if the parties in the second case were the same as, or in privity with, the parties in the first case. This was commonly referred to as the “strict mutuality of parties” requirement, but the Court of Appeals “long ago discarded” that requirement for both res judicata and collateral estoppel. Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden, 330 Md. 632, 657 (1993) (citations omitted). Thus, it is now “irrelevant that the party seeking to assert collateral estoppel was not a party to the prior proceeding. Only the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted need be a party or in privity with a party in the prior adjudication.” Id. at 657.
Get Ready for a Busy Six Weeks in the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals of Maryland has six weeks (minus a day) until its self-imposed deadline of August 31 to issue opinions in all cases heard from September 2014 through June 2015. We count 23 such cases awaiting opinions: 11 criminal appeals, 8 civil appeals, and 4 attorney discipline cases. Those numbers include three cases (1 civil, 2 attorney discipline) where the Court issued a per curiam order immediately after argument and indicated that an opinion was forthcoming. If this year shakes down like last year, we should expect most of those opinions to come down in the days following the Court’s July 23 conference, with the remaining handful of opinions coming down in August. If you want a preview of what’s coming, the Court’s Pending Cases list provides a handy guide.
Maryland Appellate Blog 