Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an unlicensed subcontractor, filed a complaint against Defendants, licensed contractors, alleging that it was entitled to a judgment in the amount that Defendants agreed to pay for home improvement work that Plaintiff performed as a subcontractor for Defendants. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, finding that contracts made by unlicensed home improvement contractors or subcontractors were illegal. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated the complaint, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law, which regulates contracts between contractors and owners, did not bar Respondent from recovering on its subcontract with Petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law did not render unenforceable a contract between a home improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor. View "Stalker Bros. v. Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a minor and her mother, sued Defendants, owners of residential rental properties, for negligence and deceptive practices in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act after the minor suffered brain injuries allegedly resulting from her ingestion of lead-based paint at one of Defendants' properties. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that they had complied with the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act by registering their property, and therefore, they were immune from suit under the immunity provisions of the Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants, holding (1) the Act's provisions granting immunity were constitutional, and (2) Defendants' registration renewals were timely because they were mailed on December 31. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they did not fully comply with the Act where the renewal of their registration was not received by December 31. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to reverse the circuit court, holding that the immunity provisions in the Act were invalid under the Maryland Declaration of Rights because no adequate remedy was substituted for the grant of immunity and the victim was uncompensated for her injuries. View "Jackson v. Dackman Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner William Briscoe was convicted of possessing a regulated firearm after having been convicted of, inter alia, possessing cocaine and wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in a vehicle. The convictions were based on evidence law enforcement officers recovered while searching Petitioner's vehicle and glove compartment at the time of his arrest. Petitioner sought suppression of the handgun, claiming it was the fruit of an illegal search. The circuit court denied the motion. While Defendant's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant. The State conceded that, under Gant, the search violated the Fourth Amendment but argued that Petitioner was not entitled to suppression by application of the good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. The court of special appeals did not reach the Gant issue, holding instead that the handgun was recovered during a valid inventory search. The Court of Appeals affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the search of the glove compartment was not a valid inventory search, but (2) the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to what, at the time, was a lawful search of the glove compartment. View "Briscoe v. State" on Justia Law

Woodmore Towne Centre applied for a non-tidal wetlands permit to construct a road extension and stream crossing in order to provide primary access into a development. After the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) approved the permit, Patuxent Riverkeeper, a nonprofit environmental group, initiated a judicial review action against MDE and Woodmore. The circuit court dismissed the action for lack of standing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Riverkeeper had standing under Md. Code Ann. Envir. 5-204(f) to initiate a judicial review action because one of its members had alleged sufficient harm to his aesthetic, recreational, and economic interests in connection with the issuance of the non-tidal wetlands permit at issue. View "Patuxent Riverkeeper v. Dep't of Env't" on Justia Law

Petitioner Christopher Mansfield was tried in a bench trial at the circuit court on five counts charging statutory sex-related offenses. At the close of the evidence, the trial judge, sua sponte and over Petitioner's objection, declared a mistrial, explaining that her knowledge of Petitioner's prior convictions and the partiality it engendered made a mistrial manifestly necessary. Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that there was not manifest necessity for the granting of the mistrial where the trial judge had knowing of Petitioner's prior convictions well before the trial began. The motions judge and the court of special appeals upheld the decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under these circumstances, when it is the court that is the trier of facts, and the court's impartiality, whether due to a personal bias or prejudice toward a criminal defendant or an inability to resolve disputed factual allegations, is impaired, manifest necessity does not exist when the reasonable alternative of recusal existed prior to jeopardy attaching. Remanded. View "Mansfield v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioners were nonresidents who neither lived nor worked in Maryland but had a source of income in the State. In 2005, the Comptroller of the Treasury issued a notice of assessment against Petitioners' 2004 joint Maryland nonresident income tax returns for failure to pay the Special Nonresident Tax (SNRT). The assessment included the amount owed for the SNRT and interest. Petitioners challenged, on federal and state constitutional grounds, the State's authority to impose the SNRT. The tax court (1) declared the SNRT to be constitutional, and (2) denied Petitioners' request to abate the accrued interest, reasoning that the court lacked the authority to do so. The circuit court affirmed as to the constitutionality of the tax but determined that the tax court could abate the interest assessment. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the SNRT does not violate the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Privileged and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution; (2) the SNRT does not violate Maryland's equal protection doctrine; and (3) the tax court's power of review extends to the abatement of interest assessments. Remanded to consider whether Petitioners were entitled to the abatement of interest. View "Frey v. Comptroller of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Appellant Norman Derr was convicted of multiple sexual offenses in circuit court. On appeal, Derr challenged the admission of forensic evidence introduced at trial through the testimony of an expert witness who did not take part in or observe the physical testing of the evidence or independently determine the test results. At issue on appeal was whether the admission of the evidence and the testimony of the expert witness violated Derr's constitutional right to confrontation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) a testimonial statement may not be introduced into evidence without the in-court testimony of the declarant, unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness; and (2) the trial judge in this case erred in admitting the results of scientific testing through a surrogate analyst who did not, on the basis of the record, perform or observe the actual testing. View "Derr v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Tonya Walker received housing benefits administered pursuant to the Section Eight Housing Program, which required certain family obligations to be satisfied for continued participation in the program. Appellant's housing benefits were later terminated by the Department of Housing and Community Development for her alleged violations of the family obligations. Appellant challenged that decision at an informal administrative hearing. A hearing officer affirmed the Department's decision. Appellant sought judicial review, asserting that the informal hearing was intended to be a "contested case" under Maryland's APA, to which certain rights and procedures apply but were not followed in her case. The circuit court affirmed the Department's decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that judicial review of the decision could not be conducted on the present record because the hearing officer did not develop a record that contained the requisite factual findings, including resolution of disputed facts, and a clear statement of the rationale for the decision. Remanded. View "Walker v. Dep't of Housing" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Petitioner Robert Thomas of carrying a handgun. Petitioner appealed, contending that the trial court erred in not allowing him to impeach a State's witness's testimony with evidence of either the witness's prior conviction or the conduct underlying that conviction. The court of special appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing either form of impeachment evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding the trial court (1) did not err or abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Petitioner to make impeachment use of the witness's prior conviction, but (2) committed reversible error in denying Petitioner's request to make impeachment use of the conduct underlying the prior conviction. Remanded for a new trial. View "Thomas v. State" on Justia Law

A year into his term as a circuit court judge, Appellant Charles Bernstein filed a complaint challenging his mandatory retirement pursuant to the Maryland Constitution, naming as defendants the State, Governor, and General Assembly. Appellant argued that Md. Const. art. IV, 3 had application only to judges who attain the age of seventy while they are in office, and thus, a person seventy years or older who was not currently serving as a circuit court judge may be appointed to fill a judicial vacancy or run for judicial office. The Court of Appeals answered questions certified to it as follows: (1) the Maryland Constitution (i) requires a sitting judge to retire upon reaching age seventy, (ii) prohibits the Governor from appointing a person seventy years of age or older to the bench, and (iii) prohibits a person seventy years of age or older from running from judicial office; and (2) the Maryland Constitution does not permit a person seventy years of age or older to run for a judicial office and, if elected, to serve out the entire term. View "Bernstein v. State" on Justia Law