35 results for 'court:"Supreme Court of Maryland"'.
J. Hotten finds the lower court improperly found that evidence is insufficient to support suspension of a driver’s license. A state trooper stopped the driver after observing him cross the white line on a roadway. The driver failed several field sobriety tests but passed a breath test, and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, driving while impaired by drugs, negligent driving, reckless driving, and failing to obey properly placed traffic control device instructions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found there was sufficient evidence to support the decision to stop the driver and because the driver refused testing after his arrest, his license was properly suspended. The driver appealed to a circuit court, and despite never viewing the dashcam footage of the incident, found there was not sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s findings. The instant court disagrees with the circuit court’s decision and finds the ALJ made the correct determination.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Hotten, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: 6a23, Categories: Evidence, Dui
J. Fader finds the lower court abused its discretion when it allowed evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts to be considered in this case of alleged murder and child abuse. Evidence was entered showing defendant pleaded guilty to child abuse resulting in the death of his infant son five years prior. Despite his objection, the lower court allowed the evidence and defendant now argues it should have been excluded. Because the State failed to sufficiently show any other reason for the evidence, other than demonstrating defendant’s propensity to commit the alleged crime, it is a violation of Maryland Rule 5-404(b), and should have been disallowed. The matter is remanded for a new trial. Reversed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Fader, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 2/23, Categories: Evidence, Murder, Child Victims
J. Fader denies the state’s motion to dismiss this appeal made by the 12-year-old accused by juvenile petition of committing motor vehicle theft. The juvenile court was required to grant the juvenile’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because a part of the Maryland Juvenile Justice Reform Act removed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over proceedings against children under 13 years of age. The ruling of the juvenile court is dismissed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Fader, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: JA-22-0183, Categories: Juvenile Law, Theft, Jurisdiction
J. Fader denies former attorney Sherwood Wescott’s petition for reinstatement to the Maryland Bar. The attorney has not submitted to bar counsel any of the required client information or client notification documentation. The attorney has also not provided documented proof of having not engaged in the practice of law during his period of suspension.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Fader, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: AG No. 2, Categories: Evidence, Due Process, Attorney Discipline
J. Gould agrees in part with the intermediate court's decision that a son's allegation of stockholder oppression is sufficient in a suit he brought against his parents' food distribution firm. The son had a share equal to that of his brother, and he was promoted quickly. His father moved to Thailand and the board made the brother president of the firm against the son's wishes. When the son attempted to get information from human resources for a dividend study, his brother and their mother blocked the request, and the son was fired shortly thereafter. As the son was an employee and a stockholder, his family's conduct foiled his logical expectations of remaining employed, input as a manager and receiving shareholder profits, which is sufficient to proceed. However, the son fails to successfully argue breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Affirmed in part.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Gould, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C-13-CV-21-000666, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, Partnerships, Business Practices
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Biran agrees with a hearing judge's determination to suspend an attorney until further notice after she violated multiple professional conduct rules. In one case, she failed to respond to her client's inquiries about his bankruptcy case and her assistant said the client should meet her, not the attorney, at a liquor store to pay a $300 filing fee before he could meet with the attorney. The client refused, saying he would pay at the attorney's office, but when he arrived, she was not there. When the client filed a complaint with bar counsel, although the attorney had not done any work on his behalf and did not refund him for fees he paid, she knowingly lied that she had done research on his behalf. This conduct, along with similar behavior in another case, warrants indefinite suspension of the attorney. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Biran, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C-03-CV-22-003423, Categories: Attorney Discipline
J. Watts disagrees with the intermediate court's decision that man charged with first- and second-degree murder was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights when his own counsel failed to challenge the lower court's instruction that the man could not speak to his counsel during an overnight recess. The intermediate court reversed the lower court's decision, saying because the man had not asked to speak to counsel, there was no deprivation. This is incorrect because even though the man had not asked, the instruction he received from the court still obstructed his right to do communicate with his counsel. Reversed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Watts, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C-13-CR-18-000001, Categories: Constitution, Murder
J. Eaves agrees with a hearing judge's determination that an attorney representing a woman who allegedly robbed a 7-11 should be suspended for at least six months for making false statements and undermining several judges' reputations. He had gone against a court order of no contact between the suspect and victim and met with both women to see if the cashier would say the suspect wasn't the robber based on physical appearance. Even though the cashier never confirmed this, the attorney argued that she had. Based on this lie, a judge struck the attorney's appearance and the suspect retained new counsel. The attorney continued to show up in the courtroom to represent the suspect, arguing said judge had no authority to strike him. Following the trial, the attorney made public statements that put the integrity of several judges into question, undermining their reputations. The attorney is indefinitely suspended but may apply for reinstatement after six months. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Eaves, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C-15-CV-22-001132, Categories: Sanctions, Attorney Discipline
J. Biran upholds the intermediate court's decision that a community justice organization should not pay the $245,000 fee to review 2,337 files of police misconduct that the Baltimore Police Department charged it. The lower court agreed with the department when it argued tax payers would be funding the fee and the information found would not be easily understood by the public. However, the intermediate court disagreed, arguing that transparency by the department would support a better relationship between the police and the public and its denial of the fee was arbitrary and capricious. Based on this logic and the fact that the justice organization could not possibly pay the fee, the department should finance it. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Biran, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 24-C-20-001269, Categories: Public Record, Police Misconduct
J. Booth agrees in part with the intermediate court’s reversal of the lower court’s decision to exclude expert testimony from an accountant whose method of analysis of an unassociated accounting firm’s records came into question after a neuroscience institute sued it. Within four years after the institute hired the firm, most of the institute’s members had quit and it eventually dissolved. Because of some mistakes in the accountant’s methodology, such as using one of the institute’s most profitable years as a baseline instead of an average year, the firm brought her credibility into question. The accountant has since made proper adjustments to her conclusions. Although the lower court was right to question the accountant, they should have focused on her methodology, not her credibility as an expert. Vacated in part.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Booth, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C-13-CV-18-000181, Categories: Experts, Accounting Malpractice, Contract
J. Hotten concurs with the lower court’s decision to uphold a postnuptial contract between Anna Cristina Niceta Lloyd, the White House Social Secretary under Donald Trump, and her husband after he had two affairs, triggering a lump sum of $7 million awarded to Niceta. Niceta agreed to consider remaining married to her husband if he gave her passwords for his bank and email accounts, converted to Catholicism, sold the car he’d used during his initial affair and got a vasectomy. He agreed to everything, but in 2018, cheated on Niceta again, at which point he said he no longer wanted to remain married to her. However, regardless of the fact that the husband agreed to Niceta’s demands after his first affair and that he was the one to decide on divorce initially, his affairs led to the dissolution of the marriage, so the postnuptial contract is rightfully enforced and Niceta will receive $7 million.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Hotten, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 165376FL, Categories: Family Law, Damages
J. Gould agrees with the lower court’s ruling that a group of health care employers fired a radiation therapist not because she was a whistleblower but because she demonstrated unprofessional behaviors a number of times. The technician claims that she was fired because she witnessed two doctors applying radiation to a patient when they knew that a mechanical piece was broken — which can result in injury to a patient and inaccurate scans — then reported the incident. However, both doctors followed necessary procedures to keep the patient safe and the scans were sufficient. For her part, the technician accrued a number of infractions, including not getting patients’ consent before using radiation, which is required, then later going back and manipulating said documents to look at though consent had been given. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Gould, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 24-C-19-002767, Categories: Employment, Health Care, Whistleblowers
J. Fader disagrees with the lower court’s determination that a county schoolteacher should be barred from serving on the county’s council because of his being a government employee. Even though he is employed by the board of education and his being elected to council is a potential conflict of interest, a county charter rule is ambiguous enough that in this case, statutory interpretation supports his candidacy.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Fader, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: C-12-CV-22-000857, Categories: Education, Employment, Government
J. Booth agrees with the lower court that the counsel provided a man convicted of distribution of heroin was sufficient. The man, arrested by one officer after a strip search revealed he was carrying heroin in his underwear, protests the counsel who represented him because the attorney failed to move to compel production of the arresting officer’s internal affairs division files. However, the attorney’s failure to do so does not demonstrate a deficiency in his representation, and the man has not shown any evidence that his conviction would’ve been different had the officer’s file been produced. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Booth, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 112222006, Categories: Drug Offender, Evidence, Ineffective Assistance
J. Gould reverses the intermediate court’s ruling that an airport should not build high-density housing as the amendment to a local ordinance that allows it to do so violates the uniformity rule in applying the ordinance. The airport, struggling financially in recent years, is also responsible for multiple plane accidents, some fatal. The county council has pressured the airport to sell or diversify its income to bring itself out of debt. The intermediate court is wrong because the county’s ordinance regarding population density of new housing construction does not discriminate against similarly situated properties and its exception as to the airport furthers a valid public purpose. Reversed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Gould, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: C-02-CV-20-001850, Categories: Government, Property, Zoning
J. Fader finds that attorney Marylin Pierre should be reprimanded after an email circulated accusing her of making false statements about sitting judges. Pierre was running for one of the judge’s seats in the circuit court of Montgomery County. A campaign manager for the group of judges sent the email two months prior to the election to Montgomery attorneys, alleging the false statements and that the attorney had engaged in unprofessional conduct in the past. Pierre had claimed that the four sitting judges had been selected on the basis of bias and diversity. She also inflated and fabricated some of her own qualifications. A hearing judge did find evidence of Pierre’s professionalism violations, although her record shows mostly legitimate conduct throughout her career. Because of the unusual circumstances involving the election, Pierre will not be disbarred but reprimanded.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Fader, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: C-02-CV-21-001655, Categories: Sanctions, Attorney Discipline
J. Biran answers questions of law from the lower court concerning a data analyst’s suit against a Catholic charitable organization after it offered, then retracted, the analyst’s husband benefits because the couple is gay. State law distinguishes between the protected classes of “sex” and “sexual orientation;” they are not synonymous. Therefore, the analyst would have to sue the organization specifically in terms of his sexual orientation.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Biran, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: CCB-20-1815, Categories: Employment, Choice Of Law, Employment Discrimination
[Consolidated.] J. Booth agrees with the intermediate court’s decision that dismissing charges against a woman for a violation of the Hicks date was inappropriate. Although the woman did not explicitly agree to a trial date beyond the Hicks date, which is within 180 days of the defense’s first appearance, her counsel sought a trial date beyond Hicks. Also, the intermediate court did dismiss charges against a man because his counsel was an active part in seeking a date beyond Hicks. Because of this, again, a dismissal is inappropriate, but the decision is reversed in that case. Affirmed and remanded. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Booth, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: C-02-CR-000392, Categories: Criminal Procedure
Per curiam, the circuit court correctly ruled that a Covid-19-related 15-day extension of a four-month closure of the clerks’ offices in 2020 does not apply to cases filed outside that closure. The petitioner, a former police officer injured on the job, filed a petition for judicial review after a hearing examiner granted him non-line-of-duty disability retirement instead of that of line-of-duty. The police department moved to dismiss, saying the petition was time-barred, to which the petitioner responded that based on the 15-day extension, it was not. The petitioner is wrong because he did not file his petition within the four-month closure.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: 24-C-22-000458, Categories: Administrative Law, Employment, Covid-19
J. Eaves answers no to the question of whether a state tort law covers federal statutory claims in a suit brought by a former university staff member after her supervisor fired her for granting interviews to Republican and Green Party mayoral candidates. The Democratic candidate could not attend a scheduled televised debate, and so the staff member cancelled it as requested but interviewed the other nominees. She also complained to her supervisor and the university about its inflated budget reports to obtain larger state and federal grants, and was fired shortly thereafter. However, because the state’s general assembly did not intend for state tort law to include federal statutory claims, the staff member cannot proceed using this argument.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Eaves, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: 21-1918, Categories: Employment, Tort, Immunity
J. Booth reverses the lower court’s decision to vacate and remand allegations of environmental regulation violations to the Maryland Department of the Environment regarding its issuance of water and ammonia control permits to Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and asserts the department’s compliance with the federal Clean Water Act standards. An environmental advocacy group sued the state agency to tighten pollution regulations on AFOs. The department appealed to the intermediate court and, concurrently, the group petitioned this court, which agrees with the department that its pollution regulations as to AFOs comply with the Clean Water Act and do not need revision.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Booth, Filed On: August 9, 2023, Case #: 482915V, Categories: Administrative Law, Environment, Government
J. Eaves remands the lower court's denial of a motion for suppression of evidence brought by a man charged with first-degree murder because factual findings regarding the origin of DNA evidence must be conducted first. The man was previously charged with involvement in a homicide, but the charges were ultimately dropped. However, investigators developed relevant DNA months later that matched the man's, which is when the state charged him with murder. But questions remain about how the evidence was collected and whether it should've been destroyed when the initial charges were dropped against him. Reversed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Eaves, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: C-06-CR-19-000833, Categories: Dna, Evidence, Murder
J. Watts finds that the lower court improperly excluded expert testimony in a suit brought by the former resident of an apartment for alleged lead paint exposure in childhood that led to the resident's cognitive disabilities. The lower court did not agree with the expert's methodology in his findings relating lead paint exposure to the resident's IQ loss. However, the court abused its discretion in then resolving genuine disputes of material fact and granting summary judgment. The resident and her witness have presented sufficient evidence to proceed. Reversed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Watts, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: 24-C-18-000268, Categories: Environment, Tort, Experts
J. Eaves finds that the intermediate court properly ruled that defendant, the grandfather of a 10-year-old child whom he sexually abused, is subject to a recent state statute allowing evidence of previous sexual assault in order to establish a pattern of behavior. Defendant sexually assaulted an adult male in 2010, and this outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice toward defendant. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Eaves, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: C-22-CR-19-000613, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Sex Offender
J. Biran agrees with a hearing judge that Gregory Jones, an attorney who violated several state rules of professional conduct, should serve a probationary period of 12 months instead of the intermediate court’s original 90-day suspension. After reviewing the case, the hearing judge argued that this attorney’s violations — including filing a plea in a criminal case without his client’s awareness or consent, failing to communicate with clients and appear at hearings, and charging exorbitant fees — warrant a year-long probation. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Biran, Filed On: July 12, 2023, Case #: 24-C-21-001414, Categories: Sanctions, Attorney Discipline
J. Fader disagrees with the lower court’s decision to award summary judgment to Comcast, which challenged a new state tax law on digital advertising gross revenues as unconstitutional. However, because Comcast has not exhausted its administrative remedies under the new law, the lower court lacks jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment and should have dismissed it instead. Remanded.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Fader, Filed On: July 12, 2023, Case #: C-02-CV-21-000509, Categories: Administrative Law, Tax, Jurisdiction
J. Gould agrees with a hearing judge’s findings that an attorney whose actions represented a conflict of interest in an estate battle should be indefinitely suspended. The attorney denies any conflict of interest or the fact that he represented either party. However, the attorney, who is not admitted to practice law in Maryland, represented an elderly widow at the same time the widow’s daughter-in-law, whom he also represented, was trying to appropriate the widow’s estate. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Gould, Filed On: July 10, 2023, Case #: C-15-CV-21-000332, Categories: Sanctions, Attorney Discipline
J. Booth agrees with the lower court’s decision not to admit an attorney to the bar based on his actions, including lying to the court by not telling it that he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland and not seeking admission under special circumstances. This was at a trial where he represented his great-niece in a child custody suit. He also knowingly lied to the court that he had sought that special circumstances admission and that it had been granted, then lied to the bar counsel that he had never practiced law in Maryland. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Booth, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: C-03-CV-003427, Categories: Sanctions, Attorney Discipline
J. Watts concurs with the intermediate court’s decision that a computer owner’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command when it searched a copy of his hard drive after seizing it for suspected child pornography. The owner’s right to privacy had not been violated because the Army did not examine the hard drive copy contents. However, the Army had searched the hard drive without a warrant after the owner’s revocation. Though less invasive than an examination, the search is considered unreasonable based on the revocation. Affirmed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Watts, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: C-02-CR-21-000487, Categories: Constitution, Search, Child Pornography