Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondents, the owner of the City Paper and a reporter, published two articles in the City Paper that reported on a double murder. Petitioner, Nicholas Piscatelli, who was mentioned unflatteringly in the articles, perceived that his reputation had been injured thereby and he had been portrayed in a false light. Piscatelli sued Respondents for damages based on defamation and false light claims. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion for summary judgment. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the manner in which Respondent published the statements placed them within the protection of fair reporting and fair comment privileges, and consequently, Piscatelli's claims were not actionable. View "Piscatelli v. Smith" on Justia Law

After an auction sale was ratified, Respondent David Simard defaulted on his contract to purchase the real property in question. Simard admitted liability for the risk and expense of the initial resale, but when the purchaser at the resale defaulted as well, Simard balked at paying the expense and loss incurred at a second resale. Applying Md. R. Civ. P. 14-305(g), the circuit court held that Simard was liable for the risk and expense of both resales. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Rule 14-305(g) required that a defaulting purchaser be responsible for only one resale. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that absent special circumstances, a defaulting purchaser at a foreclosure sale of property is liable, under Rule 14-305(g), for only the one resale resulting from his or her default. View "Burson v. Simard" on Justia Law

Six individuals and the Magothy River Association (Appellees), brought suit against the recent purchasers of Dobbins Island (Appellants), seeking to establish a public right to use a beach located alongside the island's northern crescent area. Following a bench trial, the trial judge determined that Appellees had demonstrated the existence of a prescriptive easement on behalf of the public and ordered the removal of portions of a fence erected on the beach by Appellants. In making this determination the trial judge applied the general presumption of adverse use and, accordingly, placed the burden on Appellants to prove that the use was, in fact, permissive. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's application of the general presumption of adverse use was in error, as the beach at issue was unimproved and otherwise in a general state of nature; and (2) therefore, the proper presumption, under the circumstances, was that public use was by permission of the owner. Remanded. View "Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n " on Justia Law

In 2007, the house of delegates enacted legislation that proposed a constitutional amendment that would legalize video slot machine gambling in Maryland. During that same session, the state senate initiated companion legislation, an appropriations bill, contingent on the proposed constitutional amendment being ratified by the electorate, pursuant to which the gambling revenue would be appropriated and distributed. Each piece of legislation was passed by the general assembly and signed into law by the governor. Petitioners mounted an attack on both the contingent legislation and the constitutional amendment, arguing (1) the contingent legislation unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the voters, and (2) the ballot question language regarding the constitutional amendment was misleading and deficient. The Supreme Court addressed the first of Petitioners' contentions in Smigiel v. Franchot, in which it held that the legislation was constitutional. In this case, the Court (1) affirmed its holding in Smigiel; and (2) held that, regarding Petitioners' second contention, the ballot question language was sufficient, as it accurately conveyed the effect of the proposed amendment, and was neither misleading nor deficient. View "Stop Slots MD v. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, each of whom was arrested for a crime that qualified as a serious offense and requested an attorney to represent him or her at the initial appearance, sought a declaration that they and the class of indigent persons they represented had the right, under the federal and state constitutions and the Public Defender Act, to be represented by the public defender at bail hearings, which were conducted as part of the initial appearance before commissioners at the central booking jail. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs, entered a declaratory judgment, and denied Plaintiffs' request for an injunction to enforce the rights declared. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the bail hearing that occurs at the initial appearance before a Commissioner is a stage of the criminal proceeding under the Act; and (2) consequently, if a defendant qualifies for public defender representation, a bail hearing may not occur at the initial appearance unless the defendant has been afforded appointed counsel or waived the right to counsel. View "DeWolfe v. Richmond" on Justia Law

Petitioner Rodney Moore was convicted of illegal possession of a regulated firearm and sentenced to five years' imprisonment without possibility of parole. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed, holding that the proof of operability of the firearm, as it is defined in Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety 5-101(h), is not a prerequisite to a conviction of illegal possession of a regulated firearm under Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety 5-133(c), which prohibits a person convicted of a crime of violence or offenses related to the sale and distribution of controlled dangerous substances from possessing a regulated firearm. View "Moore v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Olusegun Ogundipe was charged with multiple crimes stemming from his involvement in an incident in which one man was killed, one man was seriously injured, and one man was assaulted. Following a jury trial in the circuit court, Petitioner was convicted as charged. The court of special appeals affirmed the jury's verdict. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to answer whether there is a duty of the trial court to disclose a signed verdict sheet to a defendant or his counsel before the jury is discharged. The Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in failing to disclose the contents of the verdict sheet used by the jury in its deliberations before dismissing the jury because the jury verdict sheet is not a communication within the meaning of Md. R. Crim. P. 4-326(d), which requires the court to notify and disclose to counsel any jury communication received before responding to the communication. View "Ogundipe v. State" on Justia Law

On February 22, 2007, a prostitute alleged that she had sexual intercourse with Petitioner, an officer with the Baltimore Police Department (BDP). On June 26, 2008, the BDP administratively charged Petitioner with six violations of BDP general orders arising out of his alleged sexual misconduct and his alleged false statements to investigators with the BDP's internal investigation division on July 11, 2007 and August 1, 2007. On July 11, 2008, the BPD terminated Petitioner. Petitioner appealed, contending that the administrative charges were barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 3-106 of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights. The circuit court granted the BPD's cross-motion for summary judgment as it related to the false statement charge, ruling that it was filed within the one-year limitations window. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the limitations period begins when the officer makes the false statement, not when the earlier misconduct that underlies the investigation was alleged to have occurred. View "Robinson v. Baltimore Police Dep't" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the Maryland insurance commissioner, issued a cease-and-desist order to Respondents, several premium finance companies that provided loans primarily to customers of the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund, purporting to prevent them from charging interest on loans to consumers to pay automobile insurance premiums in excess of the statutory maximum. Respondents requested a hearing. An associate deputy insurance commissioner presided over a hearing at the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) and issued a final order affirming the commissioner's cease-and-desist order. The circuit court concluded that the administrative hearing violated Respondents' right to fundamental fairness and due process of law because the commissioner delegated the decision-making authority to a subordinate. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the court of special appeals and circuit court and affirmed for the most part the decision of the MIA, holding, inter alia, that (1) the MIA hearing was fair and without undue "command influence"; and (2) the commissioner's interpretation of Md. Code Ann. Ins. 23-304 was correct, and Respondents violated the statute when their premium finance agreements operated to assess a finance charge in excess of 1.15 percent for each of thirty days. View "Md. Ins. Comm'r v. Cent. Acceptance Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioners defaulted on their refinanced home mortgage because of financial hardships. Faced with foreclosure, Petitioners initiated a request to enjoin the foreclosure action filed by Respondents. Respondents, the substitute trustees under the mortgage and Deutsche Bank, possessed and sought to enforce an under-indorsed mortgage note, which, prior to coming into their possession, was transferred three times intermediately, bundled with a multitude of other mortgages, securitized, lost, and then discovered before the ultimate evidentiary hearing leading to the foreclosure sale. The trial court denied injunctive relief to Petitioners, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Respondents were nonholders in possession and entitled to enforce the note and deed of trust through foreclosure. View "Anderson v. Burson" on Justia Law