Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After Hospital declined to renew the privileges of Physician due to repeated complaints about Physician, Physician sued for damages. Hospital claimed immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). The circuit court granted summary judgment to Hospital, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to answer whether in the context of a summary judgment proceeding, the presumption of HCQIA immunity is rebutted upon the showing of material facts in dispute regarding the physician's reporting of substandard medical care and attempts to improve the quality of the care in the hospital system. The Court affirmed, holding (1) evidence of retaliation will not prevent summary judgment on HCQIA immunity unless it can permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that (i) the defendant failed to comply with the standards for immunity set forth in 42 U.S.C. 11112(a), or (ii) the action was not a "professional review action" under 42 U.S.C. 11151(9); and (2) in this instance, Physician did not produce evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that Hospital failed to satisfy the standards for immunity set forth in HCQIA, and therefore, summary judgment was warranted. View "Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health Sys." on Justia Law

After Leon Coleman failed to perform eight construction contracts for detached homes, he was convicted of eight counts of theft by deception and eight counts of failure to escrow under Deposits on New Homes Subtitle (Act). The court of special appeals reversed, holding that the Act did not apply and that there was insufficient evidence of intent to support the theft convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to conclude that Coleman intentionally deprived buyers of their property, as required under the theft statute; and (2) the plain meaning of the Act indicated that it did not apply to Coleman. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Roy Allen died in 2005. After a drawn-out legal struggle, the orphans' court approved an account of his estate in 2009. Before the personal representative (Appellee) would make the distribution under that account, she required that Allen's children sign a document releasing her from liability related to her duties as personal representative. Allen's sons (Appellants) refused to sign and return the document. The orphans' court ordered Appellants to sign, but they again refused. The court of special appeals affirmed the order of the orphans' court. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Md. Code Ann. Est. & Trusts 9-111 entitles a personal representative to obtain a release when she requests one; and (2) an orphans' court may order heirs and legatees to sign such releases when requested. View "Allen v. Ritter" on Justia Law

Catherine and Edward Johnson created an inter vivos trust, which named Catherine a trustee. After Edward died, Catherine's stepson, James Johnson, a beneficiary of the trust, filed a petition in the circuit court requesting, inter alia, that the court assume jurisdiction over the trust and require that Catherine file an accounting. The court granted the petition and ordered that Catherine provide an accounting to James. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the court of special appeals, holding that the trial court's order was not appealable as a final judgment because it did not decide any issue concerning the parties' rights. Remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Employee filed a complaint against Employer, claiming (1) racial and sex discrimination after Employer required her to undergo an independent medical examination for a gynecological condition, and (2) retaliatory termination of her employment. A jury held for Employee on the issues of sex discrimination and retaliatory termination. Employee was awarded damages and attorney's fees. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Employee's claims were preempted by the Labor-Management Relations Act, and even if they were not, Employee failed to adduce sufficient evidence of her claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the court of special appeals' erred in determining that Employee's retaliation claim was preempted where it was independent of a collective-bargaining agreement; (2) the court of special appeals erred in its analysis of the comparator evidence in the context of Employee's claim of disparate treatment; (3) Employee presented legally sufficient evidence that she was subject to retaliatory treatment. View "Taylor v. Giant of Maryland, LLC" on Justia Law