Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent filed a complaint against a sergeant of the Maryland State Police that was “sustained.” Respondent subsequently sought records of the internal investigation conducted by the State Police in response to her complaint, but the State Police denied the request. Respondent subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Maryland Public Information Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the State Police, concluding that the records were mandatorily exempt from disclosure as “personnel records.” The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgment, concluding that the circuit court erred in failing to require the State Police to create an index of the withheld documents and, in addition, by not conducting an in camera review of the documents to determine whether the documents could be redacted. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded to the circuit court for the entry of a declaratory judgment, holding that the internal affairs records of an investigation into the conduct of a specifically identified state trooper is a “personnel record” under the Act, and, in this case, not capable sufficiently of redaction were disclosure necessary. View "Dep’t of State Police v. Dashiell" on Justia Law

Respondents, three married couples, obtained home equity lines of credit from Petitioners, a bank and its loan officer. Approximately four years later, Petitioners filed a putative class action alleging that these transactions were part of an elaborate “buy-first-sell-later” mortgage fraud arrangement carried out by Petitioners and other defendants. Petitioners alleged numerous causes of action, including fraud, conspiracy, and violations of Maryland consumer protection statutes. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Petitioners, concluding that the statute of limitations barred several of Respondents’ claims and that no Petitioner violated the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law as a matter of law. The Court of Special Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Court of Special Appeals (1) erred in concluding that Respondents stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law; and (2) erred in concluding that it was a question of fact to be decided by the jury as to whether Respondents’ claims against Petitioners were barred by the relevant statute of limitations. View "Windesheim v. Larocca" on Justia Law

At the center of this case was the report of a Baltimore Sun reporter that a high-ranking Maryland law enforcement ballistic expert named Joseph Kopera had lied, as an expert witness for the prosecution, about his credentials and qualifications in Maryland trials for more than twenty years. Kopera testified in the trials of Ronnie Hunt and Kevin Hardy (together, Respondents). Respondents, both incarcerated, filed petitions for writ of actual innocence in their related cases, alleging that the questions about Kopera’s qualifications were newly discovered evidence that created a substantial or significant possibility that the outcomes in their trials may have been different had Kopera not lied. Respondents also asserted that the newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Maryland Rule 4-331. The circuit court denied the petitions without a hearing. The Court of Special Appeals reversed in both instances and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the petitions filed by Respondents satisfied the pleading standards established by Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. 8-301 and evaluated in Douglas v. State, Respondents were entitled to hearings on their petitions. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Lafarge North America, Inc., the operator of a ready-mix concrete plant, sought a refund from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) for allegedly improperly assessed and paid water and sewer service charges for operation of the plant. Large’s claim was deemed denied because of the WSSC’s failure to render a timely decision. The circuit court reversed the WSSC’s deemed denial of Lafarge’s claim and remanded the matter to the WSSC with directions to determine and issue an appropriate refund, concluding that the deemed denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record and was arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, given the legislative intent to provide for refunds when charges are erroneously assessed, it is appropriate to remand the case to the WSSC for calculation of the amount of the refund due. View "Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. Lafarge N.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Mark Hranicka filed a workers’ compensation claim as a result of an injury he sustained during a motor vehicle accident. The workers’ compensation claim was withdrawn. Thereafter, Hranicka submitted to the Workers’ Compensation Commission a second claim. The claim was electronically submitted to the Commission before expiration of the two-year statute of limitations but not filed on paper until after the expiration of the two-year period. Respondents contested the claim, arguing that it was time-barred under Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-709(b)(3). The Commissioner determined that the claim was not time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that electronic submission of a claim does not constitute “filing” pursuant to Code of Maryland Regulations, and therefore, the Commission erred in ruling that the filing date of a claim could be the date of the claim’s electronic submission for purposes of the statute of limitations. View "Hranicka v. Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd." on Justia Law

These proceedings involved a development project spearheaded by K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC (Appellee). Appellee obtained all of the necessary permits and approvals from state and local agencies, except one. At issue in these proceedings was Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license. Appellee filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and for a writ of mandamus against the Board of Public Works seeking an order compelling the Board to vote promptly on Appellee’s long-outstanding application for the wetlands permit following delays resulting from a perceived appearance of impropriety. The circuit court granted the requested relief and ordered the Board to vote promptly on the application. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, holding that the circuit court’s order was improper for want of a prior final administrative decision and because mandamus was unavailable under the circumstances. View "Bd. of Pub. Works v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against Respondent-doctor alleging that Respondent was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat her post-surgical infection. Because Plaintiff failed to file the required expert report to prosecute her first claim against Respondent, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff later filed a three-count complaint that was similar to her first complaint and that included a new claim of negligence related to her initial surgery. The circuit court dismissed the complaint because the claim was filed after the expiration of the relevant period of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff could not rely on the saving provision of Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-119(b) to refile her untimely claim because she voluntarily dismissed her previous claim. View "Wilcox v. Orellano" on Justia Law

Petitioners purchased real property comprised of two lots in a community of single family homes in Hampton. Petitioners later purported to subdivide their property to create an additional undeveloped parcel, which Petitioners offered for sale as separate and buildable. The Hampton Improvement Association (HIA) responded that the restrictive covenants prohibited property owners from erecting more than one house per deeded lot. Petitioners filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that their property consisted of two separate buildable lots and that the restrictive covenants did not prohibit the building of a home on the second lot. The circuit court denied relief. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, concluding that the circuit court (1) correctly denied the Shaders’s attempted use of offensive non-collateral estoppel, and (2) properly found that the restriction prohibiting the construction of more than one dwelling on a single lot was not abandoned by the HIA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that (1) the HIA was barred from relitigating the enforcement of the restrictive covenants due to a prior judgment entered against the HIA, and (2) the HIA did waive by abandonment the restrictions allowing the construction of numerous buildings. View "Shader v. Hampton Improvement Ass'n" on Justia Law

At issue in these two consolidated civil cases was the circumstances under which an insurer providing uninsured (UM) motorist coverage may disclaim any such liability owed to its insured. In these cases, Petitioners sued their UM carriers for breach of contract. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgments in favor of the UM carriers in both cases, concluding that Petitioners’ failure to comply with the statutory UM coverage settlement procedures were fatal to their claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Court of Special Appeals did not err in concluding that (1) the UM carrier did not waive its right to receive written notice of a pending settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier even where there was unequivocal testimony from Petitioner’s counsel that he received oral consent to settle from a UM carrier claims representative; and (2) the UM carrier did not bear the burden of proving prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to give written notice of the pending settlement with the tortfeasors’ insurance carrier. View "Woznicki v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a binding plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder. Two decades after he was sentenced, Defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence and motion for credit against time spent in custody, arguing that his sentence on Count I was illegal because it exceeded the sentence agreed upon by the parties under the terms of the plea agreement. The State responded by moving to correct the entire sentence, contending that the sentences on both Count I and Count III were illegal. The circuit court concluded that the sentences on both counts were illegal and ordered a resentencing in accordance with the original plea agreement. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, agreeing that Defendant’s original sentence on Count III was illegal because it was below the binding plea agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a sentence below a binding plea agreement constitutes an illegal sentence within the meaning of Maryland Rule 4-345(a). View "Bonilla v. State" on Justia Law