Marvin H. Smith

In Brooks v. Euclid Systems Corp., retired investor Richard Brooks lost his retirement savings after his financial advisor, Michael Keating, invested the funds in high-risk, unregistered securities offered by Euclid, Ridgewood, and Cyclean, contrary to Brooks's instructions for safe investments. Brooks sued the issuers, alleging they were vicariously liable for Keating's misrepresentations and negligence because Keating or his employer Delta acted as their actual or apparent agents, and also claiming direct liability for the issuers' failure to disclose material facts. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the issuers on all claims. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on the agency-based vicarious liability claims, finding no evidence of an actual or apparent agency relationship in the selling agreements or other facts, but vacated and remanded the direct nondisclosure claims because the lower court had not addressed them.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Willards granting variances to Eller Media Company to replace and erect billboards on a commercial property. Superior Outdoor Signs, Inc. and Scott P. Gregory appealed the circuit court's affirmance of the Board's decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants lacked standing to seek judicial review because Superior did not participate in the agency proceeding and Gregory, who paid taxes outside the town, did not qualify as "any taxpayer" under the applicable statute (Md. Code art. 66B § 4.08). The core reasoning focused on interpreting the standing requirements for appeals from zoning board decisions, requiring either aggrievement or taxpayer status within the relevant jurisdiction.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between two developers, Rustic Ridge and Washington Homes, over ownership of a nearly 90-acre parcel in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Washington Homes sued for a declaratory judgment establishing its ownership and for damages based on slander of title after Rustic Ridge recorded a lis pendens. The trial court granted partial summary judgment declaring Washington Homes the owner, and Rustic Ridge appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was an unappealable interlocutory judgment because the two counts sought different remedies for the same underlying cause of action based on one set of facts, and thus did not qualify as separate claims under Maryland Rule 2-602(b).

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a dispute between the developers of the Blakehurst Life Care Community and neighboring residents over proposed property improvements, including construction of a garden shed and additional parking spaces, that were subject to a recorded restrictive covenant agreement limiting the size, scope, and process for changes. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County issued injunctions requiring removal of the shed and barring the parking expansion, and awarded attorney’s fees to the neighbors. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the shed was a structure violating the agreement’s open-space provisions and that the parking plans required formal addenda approval rather than unilateral implementation, consistent with the covenant’s terms and prior administrative and judicial rulings interpreting it.

propertyprocedure

In Davidson v. Microsoft Corp., Maryland consumers sued Microsoft on behalf of a class, alleging that the company overcharged them for its Windows 98 operating system by exercising monopoly power, in violation of the Maryland Antitrust Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The circuit court granted Microsoft's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers who bought from OEMs rather than directly from Microsoft, could not recover under the antitrust statute because the Illinois Brick rule bars such suits to avoid duplicative recovery and complex damage calculations. The court also ruled that violations of the Antitrust Act are not included in the list of deceptive practices under the Consumer Protection Act. The decision relied on federal antitrust precedents and a parallel federal multidistrict litigation ruling applying the same indirect-purchaser bar.

business & regulatoryprocedure

United Book Press sued Maryland Composition for breach of contract and indemnity after the typesetter omitted the K section from a directory it was hired to produce, leading Strathmore to refuse payment for the books. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case, relying on doctrines including judicial and equitable estoppel, waiver, merger, accord and satisfaction, and the preclusive effect of a confessed judgment that United Book Press had obtained against Strathmore. The appellate court reversed, concluding that general contract principles, including the duty to mitigate damages, govern the dispute and that the cited doctrines do not bar the claim, and it remanded the case for a new trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by Bahjat J. Jafarzadeh against Dr. Seddigheh Feisee for alleged negligence during treatment in Virginia in 1995. After filing and dismissing a suit in Virginia, the plaintiff sued in Maryland, but the court addressed whether it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a Virginia resident. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County dismissed the case, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the defendant's limited contacts with Maryland, including an outdated medical license and minimal Medicaid payments, did not satisfy the requirements of the Maryland long-arm statute or due process, as the claim did not arise from those contacts and there were no continuous and systematic business activities in the state.

proceduretorts & liability

In Southern Management Corp. v. Taha, a former employee sued his corporate employer and two co-employees for malicious prosecution after burglary charges filed against him were dismissed. The jury found the individual employees not liable but held the corporation liable under a respondeat superior theory. The appellate court reversed the judgment against the corporation, holding that the verdicts were fatally inconsistent because the employer's liability depended on the employees' wrongdoing and the plaintiff had elected to proceed solely on the conduct of those two individuals whose liability had been finally resolved in their favor.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved a dispute over a promissory note executed in 1989 by Michael Kane and Randy Stewart, payable to Miles Wickman, with a balance due in 1994. After the due date, Kane sent a check for half the outstanding balance marked as payment in full of his share, along with a letter asserting several liability, which Wickman cashed after altering the notation but later sued Kane for the remaining amount. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Kane on the defense of accord and satisfaction. The appellate court reversed, holding that Kane's partial payment was not made in compromise of a bona fide dispute over liability, as required for accord and satisfaction under Maryland law, and that the note's makers were presumed jointly and severally liable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Colleen O’Brien petitioning the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for child support arrearages against her father William for expenses incurred supporting their minor sister Fiona after the mother’s death in 1996. The circuit court denied the petition, holding that Colleen lacked standing absent legal custody or guardianship of Fiona, that she failed to prove she used her own funds for support, and that Fiona’s receipt of Social Security death benefits made an award inequitable. On appeal, the court reversed, concluding that a person who maintains a child may enforce an existing child support order without obtaining custody or guardianship, that an arrearages claim does not require separate proof of personal expenditures, and that Social Security benefits do not relieve the obligated parent. The matter was remanded for calculation of the arrearage amount and related issues.

family law

John R. Williams sued his former employer, the Maryland Department of Human Resources, and a supervisor after a female colleague was promoted to a new Fiscal Specialist III position instead of him, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII, age discrimination, constructive discharge, and breach of contract. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on the age discrimination, constructive discharge, and breach of contract claims, finding no triable issues or procedural compliance failures. It reversed on the sex discrimination claim, however, because the plaintiff presented direct evidence of gender bias in the promotion decision, including supervisor statements that a female had to be selected, which created a material factual dispute precluding summary judgment.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned whether a Maryland statute requiring financially able parents to support their destitute adult children creates an independent cause of action allowing the parent to recover medical expenses from a third-party tortfeasor who injured the child. The plaintiff father sued the driver and car owner after his adult son was seriously injured in a car accident, alleging the statutory duty obligated him to pay the son's ongoing medical costs caused by the defendants' negligence. The son had previously settled his own claims against the defendants for $50,000 and signed a general release. The court held that the statute imposes a support duty but does not grant the parent a separate right to sue the tortfeasor, as such an action would extend beyond the statute's legislative purpose and scope; it affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

family lawtorts & liability

The case involved appellant Russell Green, who was convicted by a Baltimore City jury of second-degree murder and use of a handgun in a felony, and sentenced to concurrent twenty-five-year terms. Green appealed on multiple grounds, including admission of other-crimes evidence, limits on witnesses and closing argument, jury instructions on reasonable doubt, denial of a continuance, and the State's introduction at sentencing of evidence of a prior uncharged shooting without prior notice to the defense. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion or error in the evidentiary and trial rulings, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the State failed to provide the required notice under the applicable rule, which could have allowed the defense to investigate and challenge the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a circuit court's issuance of a domestic violence protective order under Maryland's Family Law Article against appellant Curtis Piper, based on allegations of stalking and harassment by his ex-fiancé Teresa Layman. The trial court found that Piper had placed Layman in fear of imminent bodily harm and issued an order prohibiting contact and requiring him to stay away from her home and workplace, though the order later expired. On appeal, the court addressed mootness concerns arising from the order's expiration but proceeded to the merits, ultimately vacating the protective order. The core reasoning was that Layman failed to present clear and convincing evidence of abuse as defined by the Domestic Violence Act, as the described incidents (such as following her vehicle without threats or making phone calls during child visitation) did not meet the statutory requirements for stalking or harassment warranting protection.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a claim by Ronnchey King, a school transportation employee for the Board of Education of Prince George’s County, seeking workers’ compensation benefits for a mental disorder diagnosed as somatization disorder and major depression, which she attributed to job-related stress from increased duties, long hours, and inadequate resources. The court considered whether a mental disorder stemming from work-related stress may be compensable as an occupational disease under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act. The court held that, on the facts of this case, it is not compensable as a matter of law. The reasoning focused on the statutory definition of occupational disease, which requires a condition arising out of and in the course of employment to which the employee is not ordinarily subjected, along with analysis of precedents distinguishing such claims from compensable accidental injuries.

labor & employment

The case involved a car accident in which the Khawajas were injured when their vehicle collided with a Rockville police cruiser that was speeding through a red light without activating its siren while responding to an emergency call. The Khawajas sued Sergeant Anselmo and the City of Rockville, alleging gross negligence by the officer and seeking damages including punitive damages. The court dismissed the claims against Sgt. Anselmo, ruling that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for gross negligence as the alleged conduct did not demonstrate the requisite wanton or reckless disregard for human life, leaving her immune under state law for simple negligence. The court also granted the city's motion limiting its liability to the amount of its insurance coverage under the Local Government Tort Claims Act and related Transportation Article provisions, which cap municipal exposure and waive certain immunities only to that extent.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case Ross v. Ross was a divorce appeal concerning the classification and equitable distribution of marital property, including stock rights in a closely held corporation, dissipated assets, a monetary award, and related attorney fees and expenses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's rulings on the authority of a successor judge to reconsider a prior order, the inclusion of dissipated property in the marital estate, and related valuation matters, but reversed the classification of unexercised pre-emptive rights to purchase stock as marital property because they were not acquired during the marriage. The court remanded for reconsideration of the amount and method of the monetary award and attorney fees due to the reversal on the stock rights issue.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether a Maryland automobile insurance policy's supplementary underinsured motorist endorsement was subject to statutory limits on uninsured motorist benefits and whether the insured could stack coverage limits across two vehicles insured under one policy. The Maryland Court of Appeals answered certified questions by holding that the endorsement remained subject to Insurance Code § 543(a), which bars duplicative or supplemental recovery from more than one policy, and that intra-policy stacking was not permitted. The court reasoned that the supplementary coverage was still uninsured motorist coverage governed by the statute's restrictions, that policy provisions on limits of liability and other insurance expressly precluded aggregation, and that the separate premium for the second vehicle reflected increased exposure rather than an entitlement to stacked benefits.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge to Montgomery County's use of amendments to a master plan to designate receiving areas for transferable development rights that would allow increased residential density on certain properties, rather than making those changes directly through zoning map amendments. The court held that the District Council could not lawfully effect such density increases via the planning process and invalidated the relevant decisions. The core reasoning was that zoning authority, including the power to regulate density, is not inherent in local governments but must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed by state law under the Regional District Act, which requires zoning procedures for map changes; additionally, any attempted delegation of that power to the Planning Board was invalid due to the absence of sufficiently precise legislative standards.

propertybusiness & regulatoryenvironment

In Ross v. State, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder after a jury found the evidence insufficient to prove premeditated murder but sufficient to establish that the killing occurred during an armed robbery. The court held that the short-form indictment language specified by Maryland Code Art. 27, § 616 adequately protects a defendant’s constitutional rights to fair notice and due process even when the prosecution proceeds on a felony-murder theory. The core reasoning is that first-degree murder is a single offense that may be proven either by showing wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing or by showing a homicide during an enumerated felony, and more than eighty years of settled Maryland law has made this dual theory of liability clear to any person charged with murder in that form.

criminal lawprocedure