Three New Court of Special Appeals Judges Named
Huge news here at the Maryland Appellate Blog! One of our editors, Kevin Arthur, is among three judges named today to the Court of Special Appeals. Kevin is also one of my law partners, and I couldn’t be happier for him. Below are the three appointees’ bios from the Governor’s press release:
Governor O’Malley announced the appointment of three judges to the Court of Special Appeals.
Judge Michael Wilson Reed has served on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City since 2011. Prior to his appointment to the Circuit Court bench, Judge Reed practiced as a litigator for over twenty years in both the public and private sectors. His public service included five years as an Assistant Attorney General at the Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and eleven years as an Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore City. Judge Reed is the President-Elect of the Bar Association of Baltimore City. He earned a law degree from George Washington University’s National Law Center and an undergraduate degree from College of the Holy Cross.
Andrea Margaretta Leahy-Fucheck has been a partner with the firm of Leahy & DeSmet, LLC since 2006. Previously, she served as Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Parris Glendening, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, Associate County Attorney for Prince George’s County, and Of Counsel at Whiteford Taylor Preston LLP. Ms. Leahy-Fucheck also served as a member of the State Ethics Commission and was twice named as one of the Daily Record’s Top 100 Women. She earned a law degree from American University’s Washington College of Law and a bachelor of arts from Catholic University.
Kevin Francis Arthur is a principal with Kramon & Graham PA, where he has spent his entire legal career. Mr. Arthur has represented clients in state and federal courts throughout the United States, in regulatory proceedings before state and federal agencies, and in arbitration cases, including cases before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. He has also served on bar committees examining best practices in civil pattern jury instructions and appellate advocacy, and he is the current chair of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Committee on Laws. Mr. Arthur earned a law degree from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and an undergraduate degree from the University of Maryland, College Park.
Maryland Certiorari Grants, February 2014
The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari in three cases on Friday. The cases, with questions presented, are below.
Granted February 21, 2014
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300 and David A. McClure v. William T. Lovelace, Jr.– Case No. 25, September Term, 2014
Issue – Labor & Employment – Is an internal union remedy “inadequate” under Md. common law if it does not allow for the monetary damages that the plaintiff seeks in court?
Joseph F. Cunningham, et al. v. Matthew Feinberg– Case No. 27, September Term, 2014
Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Does application of the Md. choice of law principle of lex loci contractus preclude a claim under the Md. Wage Payment and Collection Law (MD. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (“MWPCL”))? 2) Does proper application of lex loci contractus preclude respondent’s MWPCL claim?
Dennis J. Kelly, Jr. v. George W. Duvall, Jr., et al.– Case No. 26, September Term, 2014
Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the lower court err in construing the Will in a manner inconsistent with Md. Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 4-401 and finding that it imposed survivorship as a condition precedent to inheritance under the Will? 2) Did the lower court err in construing the Will as demonstrating the Testatrix’s contrary intent sufficient to overcome the presumption that § 4-403 (2013) (the “anti-lapse” statute) applies?
State Seeks Reversal of DeWolfe II: What Do You Think?
Yesterday, the State filed its opening brief in Ben C. Clyburn et al. v. Quinton Richmond et al., No. 105, Sept. Term 2013. Clyburn v. Richmond addresses the injunction entered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to implement DeWolfe II, which found a state constitutional right to counsel at initial appearances. The State has asked the Court of Appeals to reverse DeWolfe II. The State’s summary of that argument (from pages 27 through 29 of the brief) is pasted below. We’d love for our readers to start a conversation on both the substance and the form of that argument. Click here or go down to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this post. Read More…
Event: Recent Impact Decisions of the Maryland Appellate Courts
This just in our inbox:
THE LITIGATION SECTION OF THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION AND ITS APPELLATE PRACTICE COMMITTEE
PRESENT
Recent Impact Decisions of the Maryland Appellate Courts
Thursday, March 13, 2014
5:00 – 8:30 p.m.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building
Fourth Floor
361 Rowe Boulevard
Annapolis, MD 21401
5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Social Hour Reception – Foyer to the Courtroom
Cash Bar (Beer & Wine) & Heavy Hors D’oeuvres
6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals Courtroom
Speaker Presentations and Audience Questions
$10.00 for MSBA Litigation Section
$25.00 for others
SPEAKERS
HON. CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR., Judge (retired), Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
TIMOTHY F. MALONEY, ESQUIRE, Joseph Greenwald & Laake, PA
THIRUVENDRAN VIGNARAJAH, ESQUIRE, Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City
DONALD G. GIFFORD, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Frances King Carey School of Law
SPACE IS LIMITED
Please register on-line at https://www.msba.org/Forms/event/LitID03132014.asp or complete information below and mail with a check in the amount above payable to the MSBA, c/o Theresa L. Michael, 520 West Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, with the attendee(s) name and email address or telephone number.
McCulloch v. Maryland—Revisited With Newly Discovered Document
By Michael Wein
A recently auctioned document[1] puts a few historical facts in context of the historic Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), holding that a Maryland law seeking to tax the Second National Bank in Baltimore was unconstitutional, under an expansive reading of the Federal Government’s implied powers through the “Necessary and Proper” Clause. Here’s the link to the Ebay auction. Read More…
Fourth Circuit issues a primer on statutory construction in siding with consumers against debt collectors
In Clark v. Absolute Collection Service, Inc., issued on January 31, 2014, the Fourth Circuit provided a useful review of several standard tools of statutory construction, the application of which led the Court to come down on the pro-consumer side of a federal Circuit split. Mr. and Mrs. Clark incurred debts at a health care facility in North Carolina. After they didn’t pay those debts, the creditor referred the debts to ACS, a third-party debt collector. ACS then sent collection notices to the Clarks that said, among other things: “ALL PORTIONS OF THIS CLAIM SHALL BE ASSUMED VALID UNLESS DISPUTED IN WRITING WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS” (emphasis added). Read More…
BABC Appellate Advocacy Event
An email invite (text cut-and-pasted below) just appeared in our inboxes for the following Baltimore City Bar Association event:
MILTON TALKIN LECTURE
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
12:00 noon to 1:30 p.m.
Clarence Mitchell Courthouse
Room 504
(Bar Library’s Brown Room)
Bring Your Lunch.
Appellate Advocacy
Guest Speaker
The Honorable Joseph F. Murphy, Jr.
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Retired
Member, Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC
Judge Murphy, Maryland’s foremost expert in appellate advocacy, retired from the Court of Appeals in August 2011 and joined the law firm of Silverman, Thompson Slutkin & White, LLC, where he focuses his court practice to litigation support. He also heads the firm’s Alternative Dispute Resolution practice. Judge Murphy authored the Maryland Evidence Handbook, teaches Evidence at the University of Baltimore Law School, and teaches Trial Practice at the University of Maryland Law School.
Admission:
BABC Members – FREE
Non-Members $40
For information or to register, email info@baltimorebar.org, or call 410-539-5936.
Espina v. Prince George’s County – Separation of Powers and Legislative Damages Caps for Violation of Rights Based on Self-Executing State Constitutional Provisions
In Espina v. Prince George’s County, No. 2044 (Md Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 20, 2013), the Court of Special Appeals ruled that the damage cap in Maryland’s Local Government Tort Claims Act (“LGTCA”), codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 5-301 et seq., applies to tort claims based on a violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, in this particular case Article 24. Article 24 provides:
That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land
The essence of the LGTCA’s damages cap is codified in Section 5-303(a)(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which provides:
[T]he liability of a local government may not exceed $200,000 per an individual claim, and $500,000 per total claims that arise from the same occurrence for damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions . . . .
January 2014 Certiorari Grants
On Friday, January 24, the Court of Appeals granted certiorari in four cases. Below are the four cases, with questions presented, as they appear on the Court’s website:
Granted January 24, 2013
Bernard Delaney McCree, Jr. v. State of Maryland– Case No. 20, September Term, 2014
Issue – Criminal Law – Is the trademark counterfeiting statute, Md. Code, Crim. Law Art. § 8-611 (2012 Repl. Vol.), unconstitutional because it is overbroad and/or void-for-vagueness?
Dominik Oglesby v. State of Maryland– Case No. 23, September Term, 2014
Issue – Criminal Law – Pursuant to the rule of lenity, was Appellant required to be sentenced for possession of a firearm pursuant to Crim. Law Art., § 5-622, one of the two statutes punishing the conduct for which he was sentenced, because it prescribed a more lenient sentence than that mandated by the statute, Public Safety Art., § 5-133, under which he was sentenced?
People’s Insurance Counsel Division v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al.– Case No. 21, September Term, 2014
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Should this Court reexamine Maryland common law on construing insurance contracts and, recognizing that such contracts are not the product of equal bargaining, hold that terms contained in an insurance policy must be strictly construed against the insurer? 2) Did the Commissioner err in allowing State Farm to deny coverage for damage to a collapsed carport under a policy that insured against “the sudden, entire collapse of a building” based on a restrictive definition of the term “building” that does not appear in the insurance policy or any other written document, and is based only on oral instructions given to a catastrophe claims adjuster when she was dispatched to handle claims following a severe snowstorm?
William Siam Simpson, III v. State of Maryland– Case No. 22, September Term, 2014
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the State violate a criminal defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when a prosecutor repeatedly and over objection assures the jury in opening statement that the defendant “will tell you” that he committed the alleged offenses? 2) Does a trial court commit reversible error when it allows the State to offer opinion testimony from a law enforcement officer concerning his canine partner’s alleged detection of an accelerant without requiring the State to name the officer as an expert prior to trial or to qualify the officer as an expert at trial? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a police officer may not testify as to the significance of an accelerant-detecting dog’s actions unless that officer is first qualified and accepted as an expert pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702?
Maryland Public Defender Decisions: New Developments
Yesterday the Court of Appeals posted an order granting certiorari in Clyburn v. Richmond, limited to the following three questions:
1. Did the circuit court err in entering an injunction directing officials of the District Court to conduct initial appearances in a manner inconsistent with the existing rules promulgated by this Court?
2. Did the circuit court err in granting an application for supplemental relief based on a prior declaratory judgment without first issuing a show cause order, as required by the statute governing such applications?
3. Did the circuit court err in ordering officials of the District Court to appoint counsel for all arrestees at initial appearances and prohibiting those court officials from conducting initial appearances for arrestees who were not provided with counsel?
Argument has been set for March 7, 2014. This blog has provided extensive analysis (see below) of the DeWolfe v. Richmond decisions regarding the right to counsel at bail hearings. We’ll be providing commentary on Clyburn v. Richmond — including the implications for DeWolfe v. Richmond — as details develop.
Related Posts
- Alan Sternstein, DeWolfe v. Richmond: State Law or Just Law?
- Kevin Arthur, Who Is on the Court Of Appeals: The Role of Retired Judges
- Kevin Arthur, The Public Defender Opinion: The Implications of Resting on State-Law Grounds
Maryland Appellate Blog 