For the most recent Court of Appeals term, which ran from September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, I began tracking the Court’s merits docket across a number of categories. The Court’s criminal docket offers an interesting data set, because the State of Maryland is a party to every case, and the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) represents about 60% of defendants.
Going by bottom-line judgments, the State prevailed approximately half the time, maybe more, depending on how you count them. Read More…
Three vacancies on Maryland’s appellate courts, arising from the forthcoming retirements of Judge Sally D. Adkins of the Court of Appeals (1st Appellate Judicial Circuit, covering the Eastern Shore), Chief Judge Patrick L. Woodward of the Court of Special Appeals (Montgomery County), and Judge Deborah Sweet Eyler of the Court of Special Appeals (At Large), collectively drew 27 applicants, whose names were published this afternoon.
In Bryant v. State, No. 37, September Term 2013 (Feb. 3, 2014), the Court of Appeals re-affirmed the importance of preserving issues for appellate review, holding that the defendant had waived his challenge to the imposition of his sentence. The Court also concluded that – even if the issue had been preserved – the defendant’s sentence had been properly imposed. Read More…
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?
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…
This just in our inbox:
THE LITIGATION SECTION OF THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION AND ITS APPELLATE PRACTICE COMMITTEE
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
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
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.
By Michael Wein
A recently auctioned document 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…
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
(Bar Library’s Brown Room)
Bring Your Lunch.
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.
BABC Members – FREE
For information or to register, email firstname.lastname@example.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 . . . .
In January of last year, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147 (2013), held that Maryland tax law discriminated against interstate commerce by failing to allow a tax credit for certain “pass through” income for Subchapter S corporations. Judge McDonald wrote the majority opinion, and Judge Greene, joined by Judge Battaglia, dissented. In May, the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, but it stayed its mandate pending the Comptroller’s filing of a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. SCOTUSblog has been tracking the case.
Today’s orders list from the United States Supreme Court included an order in Comptroller v. Wynne that “[t]he Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.” Though such a call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG) is far from a guarantee that the Supreme Court will grant review, it is an indication that the Supreme Court is taking the petition seriously. Read More…