Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The City of Baltimore initiated a condemnation action to acquire an old theater once used as a vaudeville venue. The theater's owner (Owner) contested the action, arguing that the City had no right to condemn the property. Six weeks before trial, Owner filed an emergency motion demanding a postponement and an order requiring the City to pay to move all the junk out of the theater prior to trial so the jury would not view the property in its existing condition. The trial court denied the motion and the jury viewed the theater as is. The court of special appeals ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Owner's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Owner was not entitled to a payment in advance of trial, and Owner suffered no prejudice from the denial beyond what it brought upon itself. View "A&E North, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

Respondent, a minor who was having trouble breathing, was transferred by helicopter from a hospital to a university medical center. Present on the flight was a paramedic employed by Petitioner TransCare Maryland, Inc., who had been invited to ride along by the UMMS nurse for training purposes. During the flight, Respondent's heart rate and oxygen level began to drop because the endotracheal tube had allegedly become dislodged and was blocking Respondent's airway. Respondent, by his mother, filed a complaint against TransCare, a commercial ambulance company, alleging medical malpractice on the basis that its employee had failed to provide the requisite standard of care and that TransCare was liable for Respondent's resulting brain injury under the principle of respondeat superior. The circuit court granted summary judgment for TransCare, concluding that TransCare was immune under the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire and Rescue Act. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that neither statute applied to a private, for-profit ambulance company. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that neither statute relieved TransCare of liability for the allegedly negligent actions of its employee while its employee was in training. View "Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray" on Justia Law

The Maryland Economic Development Corporation (MEDCO) is a public corporation established by the legislature to aid in promoting the economic development of the State. This litigation arose from MEDCO's involvement in the development of a technology development center. MEDCO sought a loan with Bank to finance the center. MEDCO executed a leasehold deed of trust with Bank requiring MEDCO to pay all recording costs and fees in connection with filing the loan documents. MEDCO subsequently presented the deed of trust for recording in Montgomery County, claiming an exemption from the recordation tax based on Md. Code Ann. Econ. Dev. 10-129(a), which granted MEDCO a tax exemption "from any requirement to pay taxes or assessments on its properties or activities." The county transfer office denied the exemption and required MEDCO to pay recordation tax. The county department of finance denied MEDCO's recordation tax refund claim. The tax court denied MEDCO's petition for appeal. The circuit court reversed, and the court of special appeals reversed the circuit court. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, based on the plain language of section 10-129(a), the legislature intended to exempt MEDCO from paying the recordation tax at issue in this case. View "Md. Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Montgomery County" on Justia Law

Tiffany Alston, a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates, was removed as a delegate after she was convicted and sentenced for misconduct in office. Before Alston fulfilled the conditions of her sentence, the assistant attorney general declared her removed from her House seat by operation of law. Gregory Hall was nominated to fill Alston's seat. While Hall's nomination was before the Governor, the Governor requested that the Democratic Central Committee of Prince George's County (Central Committee) withdraw the nomination. Hall filed a complaint seeking to prevent the withdrawal of his nomination. Alston filed, as an intervener and third-party plaintiff in the same case, a separate complaint seeking a declaration that she had been merely suspended, rather than removed, from her House seat because her conviction and sentence had been converted into probation before judgment. The circuit court ruled (1) Alston had been removed by operation of law on the date she was sentenced for her misconduct in office conviction; and (2) the Central Committee had the power to rescind Hall's nomination at any time before the Governor made the appointment. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no error in the circuit court's judgment. View "Hall v. Prince George's County Democratic Cent. Comm." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court's replacement of a juror with an alternate juror without the knowledge or acquiescence of defense counsel was a violation of Maryland Rule 4-326(d) and, therefore, reversible error. The court of special appeals affirmed, holding that no prejudice occurred by the removal of the juror. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding (1) the trial court's unilateral action in discharging the juror and replacing her with an alternate without first notifying defense counsel was error; and (2) the State did not carry its burden of establishing that Defendant was not prejudiced by the rule violation. View "Grade v. State" on Justia Law

Complainants were disabled residents of a condominium. Complainants filed a complaint against the condominium's board of directors (the Condo) and their property management company, alleging that the Condo had discriminated against them by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities. Specifically, Complainants alleged that the Condo refused to provide keys to the side and back doors to their building. The Office of Administrative Hearings ruled that Complainants had not proven that giving them the keys to the side and back doors was necessary and reasonable. The Appeal Board of the Commission on Human Relations (Board) disagreed and determined that the Condo (1) was required to prove that giving Complainants keys was an unreasonable financial burden, and (2) failed to establish that giving Complainants keys presented an undue burden. The circuit court reversed. The court of special appeals vacated the circuit court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Condo was required to prove that providing keys to Complainants was unreasonable in light of the costs attendant in doing so; and (2) the Board properly performed the requisite balancing test when it concluded the Condo unreasonably denied Complainants' requests to be given the disputed keys. View " Cameron Grove Condo. Bd. of Dirs. v. Comm'n on Human Relations" on Justia Law

On March 30, 2009, Petitioner committed a theft of property. After a trial held on December 11, 2009, Petitioner was convicted of the theft of property having a value of $615. Petitioner was sentenced to ten years in prison. On October 1, 2009, amendments to the Maryland theft statute took effect that would have made Petitioner's crime a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not exceeding eighteen months, a $500 fine, or both. The Court of Appeals granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to decide whether the penalty provisions of the 2009 theft statute amendments were applicable to Petitioner's sentencing. The Court reversed, holding that the sentence imposed upon Petitioner was illegal because it was not authorized by the statute in effect at the time of his trial and sentencing. Remanded. View "Waker v. State" on Justia Law

The Town of Oxford introduced a resolution proposing to annex a number of acres of submerged lands. Petition circulators subsequently submitted a petition for referendum regarding the proposed solution. The petition was submitted before the public hearing on the annexation resolution but before the final enactment of the resolution. The Town Commissioners determined that the signatures affixed before final enactment of the resolution were invalid, and therefore, a referendum was not required. Petitioner filed this action, contending that the referendum petition was valid. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Petitioner, holding that signatures on a referendum petition may be collected before final enactment of the targeted annexation resolution. The court of special appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the court of special appeals was correct in concluding that, pursuant to Md. Code Ann. art. 23A, 19, petition signatures gathered after introduction, but prior to commencement of the forty-five day period after final enactment of the resolution, could not be counted toward petitioning the resolution to referendum; and (2) by not counting pre-enactment signatures, the referendum effort did not succeed in obtaining a sufficient number of petition signatures for a referendum election to be held. View "Koste v. Town of Oxford" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault in connection with an attack on his girlfriend. The court of special appeals affirmed. At issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the trial court acted within its discretion in responding to a jury question concerning evidence that was not presented at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in crafting the jury response it did, as (1) trial courts have a duty to answer, as directly as possible, the questions posed by jurors; (2) the circuit court's response in this case closely tracked a pattern jury instruction given earlier; (3) the court's answer did not contradict the trial judge's earlier instructions; and (4) the answer given allowed the jury to draw what inferences it might from the evidence without the court impermissibly suggesting what inferences to draw. View "Appraicio v. State" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of the alleged exposure of Plaintiff to lead paint at the homes in which she spent her childhood. Petitioner, by her mother, sued the owners of two of the homes, for negligence and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act. Only the claims against the second owner proceeded to trial. The circuit court awarded summary judgment in favor of Defendant after excluding proposed expert opinion testimony of a pediatrician to establish Defendant's building as the source of Plaintiff's lead exposure and elevated blood lead levels. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the proposed expert testimony; but (2) summary judgment in this case was not appropriate, as disputes of material fact existed to foreclose a grant of summary judgment. View "Ross v. Housing Auth. of Baltimore City" on Justia Law