Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Father and Mother, the parents of two minor children, were divorced in 2011 pursuant to a decree that granted them joint legal custody. In 2014, Father filed a motion to modify custody, seeking sole custody of his sons. The circuit court denied the motion and refused to order joint custody in light of Taylor v. Taylor. In Taylor, the Supreme Court held that the most important factor for a court to consider before awarding joint custody is the ability of the parents to communicate and to reach shared decisions affecting a child’s welfare. Father appealed, arguing that that the award of joint custody was an abuse of discretion where he and Mother could not communicate or reach shared decisions for their sons. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a court may grant joint legal custody to parents who cannot effectively communicate regarding matters pertaining to their children, and, in doing so, the court has the legal authority to include tie-breaking provisions in the joint legal custody award; and (2) the circuit court in this case did not abuse its discretion in ordering joint legal custody with tie-breaking provisions. View "Santo v. Santo" on Justia Law

A clinical review panel authorized the forced medication of Petitioner, a resident of a facility operated by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. An administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed. Petitioner sought judicial review, arguing that, on its face, Md. Code Ann. Health-Gen. (HG) 10-708(g) violates the Maryland Declaration of Rights by permitting forced medication without a showing that an individual is dangerous to himself or others. The circuit court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) HG 10-708(g) is not unconstitutional on its face; but (2) the authorization for involuntary medication may only be constitutionally carried out when an overriding justification exists. View "Allmond v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene" on Justia Law

In 2010, Respondent, a citizen of Ecuador, pled not guilty on an agreed statement of facts and was found guilty of second-degree child abuse. In 2013, Respondent filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him regarding the immigration consequences he could face as a result of conviction. The coram nobis court denied the petition. The Court of Special Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that Respondent established that trial counsel did not provide him with the correct “available advice” about the risk of deportation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that trial counsel did not perform in a constitutionally deficient manner in advising Respondent as to the immigration consequences of a conviction for second-degree child abuse. View "State v. Sanmartin Prado" on Justia Law

Brittany Conover conceived a child through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor. She and Michelle Conover gave birth to a son, Jaxon, and married when Jaxon was about six months old. The next year, the lesbian couple separated. Brittany later sought a divorce, stating that there were no children shared by the couple from the marriage. Michelle requested visitation rights but did not request custody. The circuit court concluded that Michelle did not have standing to contest custody or visitation. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the doctrine of de facto parenthood is a viable means to establish standing to contest custody or visitation. Thus, the Court overruled its previous decision in Janice M. v. Margaret K. Remanded to the circuit court for a determination of whether Michelle should be considered a de facto parent. View "Conover v. Conover" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals with lung cancer, attempted to join in one action claims against Defendants, asbestos and tobacco companies, alleging that their cancers were caused by their exposure to asbestos and smoking cigarettes. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed claimed that “the combination of asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking acted in ‘synergy’ and multiplied the risk of developing lung cancer[.]” The trial court refused to permit joinder of the two sets of defendants on the special asbestos docket maintained by the court. The appellate issues dealt with how the trial implemented its decision to deny joinder, and the issues before the Supreme Court were largely procedural. The Court held (1) there was a final judgment in the case; (2) Plaintiff’s appeal, in any event, was moot and should be dismissed on that ground; and (3) the Court of Special Appeals did not err addressing the joinder argument made by Plaintiff for guidance of the lower court in other pending cases. View "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stidham" on Justia Law

These two cases involved the common facts of underage people drinking alcohol on an adult’s property and then leaving that property in a motor vehicle. The alcohol was consumed with the knowledge and consent of the adult property owner. Plaintiffs in both cases filed negligence actions against the property owners, alleging that one defendant caused the death of an individual and that the other defendant caused another individual’s life-threatening injuries. In the first case, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. In the second case, the trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the trial courts, holding (1) adults who allow underage drinking on their property may owe a civil duty to persons injured as a result of such drinking, including the underage persons consuming the alcohol; and (2) Defendants in both cases owed the victims in these cases such a duty. View "Kiriakos v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Commissioner of Financial Regulation of the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation brought an administrative enforcement action against CashCall, Inc., a California corporation that marketed high-interest loans to consumers through television and internet advertisements, and John Paul Reddam (together, Petitioners), the corporation’s president and owner, alleging that Petitioners violated the Maryland Credit Services Business Act (MCSBA). The Commissioner concluded that CashCall was subject to the MCSBA, ordered Petitioners to cease and desist from engaging in the credit services business, and ordered that Petitioners pay a civil penalty. The circuit court reversed, concluding that CashCall was not a “credit services” business under the MCSBA. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the MCSBA’s definition of a “credit services business” requires there to be a direct payment from a consumer to an entity whose primary business is to assist consumers in obtaining loans that would be usurious under Maryland law. View "CashCall, Inc. v. Comm'r of Fin. Regulation" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of neglect of a minor. Petitioner was sentenced to twenty days’ incarceration. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address the questions of whether Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law 3-602.1, the criminal neglect of a minor statute, was unconstitutionally vague and whether the evidence was sufficient to support Petitioner’s conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support Petitioner’s conviction for criminal child neglect. Remanded with directions to reverse the judgment of the circuit court. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

In 2003, Petitioner entered an Alford plea to second degree rape. Thereafter, Petitioner filed several motions for DNA testing. In 2005, the petition was granted, but the results of the testing yielded inconclusive results. In 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for DNA testing alleging that that testing a piece of underwear and additional material collected on laboratory microscope slides would produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence. The circuit court denied the petition pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. 8-201. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that none of Petitioner’s assertions in his 2015 petition would have produced evidence which would have exculpated him of second degree rape under the standard of section 8-201(c), and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying the petition. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the assignee of an entity that paid certain sewer connection charges, sought a refund of the charges, asserting that they were improperly charged by the Town of Bel Air. The Town’s Director of Finance denied Petitioner’s refund application. On appeal, the Tax Court granted the Town’s motion to dismiss, concluding (1) it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s refund claim because it did not come within the purview of the refund statute, and (2) even if the sewer connection charges were miscalculated or illegally imposed the common law voluntary payment doctrine precluded Petitioner from obtaining a refund. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioner may pursue its refund claim under the refund statute; (2) Petitioner’s claim is not barred by the voluntary payment doctrine; and (3) the Tax Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal. View "Brutus 630, LLC v. Town of Bel Air" on Justia Law