Espina v. Jackson: Marbury v. Madison Revisited?
In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall laid the cornerstone for this country’s view of judicial power, particularly as it relates to the powers of correspondent branches of government, in the case of the federal government, Congress and the President. There, in deciding whether the U.S. Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider William Marbury’s petition to compel Secretary of State James Madison’s delivery of Marbury’s judicial commission by John Adams, Marshall’s opinion held that Madison’s withholding the commission was illegal. Sidestepping a confrontation with the executive branch, however, Marshall held that Marbury’s petition was not within the Court’s jurisdiction and denied it. Marshall ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, under which Marbury had brought his action, unconstitutionally expanded the Court’s Article III original jurisdiction, observing as a seeming aside that
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
5 U.S. at 177-78.
Final Judgments — An Ongoing Dilemma
Other than failing to preserve an issue or note an objection at the proper time, one of the main causes of paranoia in appellate practitioners is the need for a final judgment. During the past 20 years, the appellate courts have routinely admonished litigators that they must have a final judgment to obtain appellate review. The simplest final judgment occurs when a case has been tried and a jury rendered its verdict. In other situations, many of us refer to the Maryland Code to identify the status of a case — does it resolve all of the issues? Are the parties “out of court”? Does the case satisfy the criteria for an interlocutory appeal? Is it a collateral order?
How to Speed Up the Serial Appeal
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
[Update: A reader, David Lease, pointed out to me the 4-3 decision in Stachowski v State, 416 Md. 276(2010), which appears to negate the possibility of bypass. Thanks to David and boo to Stachowski.]
Fans of the Serial podcast received some good news and some bad news this weekend. The good news: the Court of Special Appeals granted Adnan Syed’s application for leave to appeal. His ineffective assistance of counsel claim will be heard on the merits during the court’s June 2015 sitting. But there was bad news for those who had trouble waiting between Serial installments: final resolution is going to take a while. As Sarah Koenig explained on her blog: Read More…
Event: Recent Impact Decisions of the Maryland Appellate Courts
From the Maryland Appellate Blog’s inbox:
THE LITIGATION SECTION OF THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASS’N AND ITS APPELLATE PRACTICE COMMITTEE
PRESENT
Recent Impact Decisions of the Maryland Appellate Courts
Thursday, March 19, 2015
5:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building
Fourth Floor 361 Rowe Boulevard Annapolis, MD 21401
5:00 – 6:00 p.m. Social Hour Reception – Foyer to the Courtroom
(front doors to the Courthouse close at 6:00 p.m.)
Cash Bar (Beer & Wine) & Heavy Hors D’oeuvres
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals Courtroom
Speaker Presentations and Audience Questions
$10.00 for MSBA Litigation Section
$25.00 for others
SPEAKERS:
HON. ALAN M. WILNER, Judge (retired), Court of Appeals of Maryland
RENÉE HUTCHINS, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Frances King Carey School of Law
BRUCE L. MARCUS, ESQUIRE, MarcusBonsib LLC
SPACE IS LIMITED
Please register on-line at http://www.msba.org/RecentImpactDecisionsMarch2015.aspx
January 2015 Maryland Certiorari Grants
The year’s first big snowstorm for the state has also brought a modest flurry of certiorari grants from the Court of Appeals, including a couple matters of interest for mass-torts practitioners: the effect of component replacements on a manufacturer’s duty to warn, and qualification of expert witnesses in lead-exposure cases. So after you’re done digging out from the blizzard, dig in to these new additions to the high court’s docket, found after the jump.
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…
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 Court of Appeals Ends Unusual Certiorari Procedure
By Steve Klepper (Twitter: @MDAppeal)
With no fanfare, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has ended an internal practice that was unusual among state high courts. At the May meeting of the MSBA Litigation Section Council, Court of Appeals Judge (and Section Chair) Glenn Harrell informed the council that the Court of Appeals has, effective immediately, disbanded its Bypass Committee.
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?
Maryland Appellate Blog 