Deborah Eyler

The case involved a Montgomery County employee who received a service-connected partial disability retirement pension for certain injuries and later sought workers' compensation benefits for occupational hearing loss that manifested after retirement. The Workers' Compensation Commission denied the county's request for an offset under Labor and Employment Article § 9-610, but the circuit court reversed and allowed the offset. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the 1999 version of the offset statute applied because it was in effect at the time of disablement, and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Spevak v. Montgomery County applied retroactively to this new factual scenario. The court reasoned that, unlike a total disability pension which covers all work-related conditions, the partial disability pension was limited to specified injuries and did not cover the hearing loss, so the benefits were not similar and no offset was permitted.

labor & employment

The case involved Pascal Nensala's convictions for attempted first- and second-degree murder after he was identified by the victim as the person who stabbed him during a workplace confrontation stemming from a personal dispute. The defense sought to cross-examine the victim about his bipolar disorder diagnosis to challenge his credibility and suggest impaired perception, but the trial court excluded the inquiry as irrelevant. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, reasoning that the defense proffer lacked a factual foundation showing the disorder could seriously impair the victim's ability to perceive and recall reality at the relevant time, as bipolar disorder is typically a mood disorder without psychotic features, unlike conditions such as schizophrenia. The court also found sufficient evidence of intent, premeditation, and deliberation, and no error in the sentencing proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a dispute over restrictive covenants on a lot in Columbia Town Center, where IMH Columbia sought to develop a mixed-use project including residential uses and on-site parking. IMH sued HRD, the enforcer of the covenants, for breach after HRD rejected the second phase of the project in its sole discretion, also claiming detrimental reliance and seeking declaratory relief that the covenants were obsolete. The circuit court interpreted the covenants, a jury found for IMH on breach and obsolescence claims awarding nearly $17 million in damages, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the covenants unambiguously gave the architectural review committee, not HRD, authority over use changes like residential development, while HRD's consent to on-site parking was not required under the facts found by the jury, leading to a breach finding. Damages for lost return on investment and increased financing costs were upheld as non-duplicative and proven with reasonable certainty.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Montay D. Shuler, who was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, robbery with a deadly weapon, and related crimes after two victims were shot to death in Baltimore. Shuler moved to suppress evidence from his warrantless arrest, claiming it lacked probable cause due to reliance on an anonymous 911 call describing the getaway vehicle, and requested a jury instruction on the voluntariness of his exculpatory statement to police. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the convictions, finding that the caller's detailed firsthand account of the shootings and getaway, along with the vehicle's license plate, the defendant's ownership of the matching car, and his proximity to it, established probable cause under the totality of circumstances. The court also held that no evidence generated at trial supported a voluntariness instruction, as the brief post-Miranda interview produced no facts suggesting coercion and the statement was used only for impeachment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Aaron Scott Vangorder, who was convicted after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County of multiple counts including sexual abuse of a minor by a household member, sexual abuse by a person with temporary supervision, third- and fourth-degree sexual offenses, second-degree assault, and sexual solicitation of a minor. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's sexual orientation. The court reasoned that such evidence was irrelevant in child sexual abuse cases involving a pre-adolescent victim with no established link between the defendant's orientation and the alleged abuse, though it found the evidence otherwise legally sufficient to sustain the convictions on retrial.

criminal law

In 2018, Tavon Brand pleaded not criminally responsible to first-degree murder and related handgun charges in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, but on the day of trial his counsel's failure to timely obtain a supporting expert report led the court to deny a postponement; following counsel's advice, Brand waived his jury trial right, believing he could not both plead guilty and later seek a jury on his NCR defense, resulting in a bifurcated bench trial where he was found guilty of the acts and criminally responsible. Brand filed a 2023 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the postconviction court granted relief. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed in part, holding that prejudice is not presumed from the loss of a jury trial opportunity in an ineffective-assistance postconviction claim and that Brand made no showing of actual prejudice under the Strickland standard.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the Wicomico County Executive and the County Council over the interpretation of § 315(A) of the county charter, which governs confirmation of executive appointments to positions such as Assistant Director of Administration, and the Council's authority to defund a position after rejecting a candidate. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the County Executive, ruling that the candidate was confirmed by the Council's inaction and that the Council lacked authority to eliminate the budget line. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that the Executive had not formally named the candidate and requested Council action at a legislative session as required by the charter, so the appointment was not confirmed by inaction and the Council could lawfully defund the position. The court further addressed post-judgment motions, concluding that the circuit court's corrections to its opinion responded to the parties' filings, that no hearing was required on the denial of the Council's motion to alter or amend because there was no substantive change, and that any procedural error was harmless given the de novo review on appeal. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for entry of a new declaratory judgment consistent with the opinion.

procedure

This case involved a dispute between the Wicomico County Executive and the County Council over the interpretation of § 315(A) of the county charter, which governs the confirmation process for executive appointments. The Executive had appointed a candidate to Assistant Director of Administration without a formal submission at a legislative session, leading the Council to reject the candidate and pass legislation defunding the position; the circuit court ruled in favor of the Executive, finding confirmation by council inaction and barring the defunding. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland held that the charter requires the Executive to formally name a candidate and request council action at a legislative session, so the candidate was not confirmed by inaction, and the Council had authority to defund the position until proper procedures were followed. The court vacated the circuit court's declaratory judgment and injunction, remanded for entry of judgment in the Council's favor, and addressed post-judgment motions, concluding that any procedural errors were harmless because the issues were decided de novo.

procedure

In Swinton Home Care, LLC v. Tayman, a home health care provider sued a patient's sister and her estate to recover for unpaid services under a contract signed by the sister on the patient's behalf, along with a personal guaranty signed by the sister. Following a bench trial, the circuit court ruled for the defendants after finding that the provider's agent had fraudulently induced the sister to sign by falsely stating she could do so without a power of attorney or other authorization, which voided the contract and guaranty and precluded equitable remedies such as quantum meruit. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, concluding that the record contained sufficient evidence of misrepresentation and reliance to support the trial court's decision to rescind the agreement.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerned whether Potomac Edison, an electric utility, was entitled to a partial refund of Maryland sales and use tax on equipment in its transmission and distribution system that it used to process electricity for resale to customers. After an audit, the Comptroller assessed tax on the equipment; Potomac Edison timely filed a refund claim within 30 days of the assessment notice, which the Tax Court partially granted after finding that certain categories of equipment qualified for the production-activity exemption under TG § 11-210(b) and that interest was due. On judicial review, the circuit court upheld the exemption ruling but reversed on timeliness; the Appellate Court of Maryland vacated that part of the circuit court's judgment, holding that the 30-day period in TG § 13-508 controlled the filing deadline, that substantial evidence supported the Tax Court's exemption and interest determinations, and that the claim was therefore timely.

taxesprocedure

This case concerns a 1994 lawsuit by parents of Baltimore City schoolchildren alleging that the city's public schools violated Article VIII of the Maryland Constitution by failing to provide a thorough and efficient free education. The parties settled in 1996 via a Consent Decree that restructured school management, provided extra funding through 2002, and allowed limited court oversight or extensions for good cause. After full state Thornton funding was achieved in 2008 and with no further activity until 2019, the Bradford Plaintiffs petitioned for additional relief claiming ongoing constitutional violations. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by not dismissing the petition and ordered the Consent Decree dissolved, reasoning that the decree's terms and limited jurisdictional scope had been satisfied or rendered obsolete by changed circumstances and the passage of time, though new claims based on current conditions could be filed separately.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a 1994 lawsuit by Baltimore City parents alleging that the city's public schools violated Article VIII of the Maryland Constitution by failing to provide a thorough and efficient free education. The parties settled in 1996 through a consent decree that restructured school management, provided extra funding through 2002, and allowed limited court oversight or extensions for good cause. After extensions tied to state Thornton funding recommendations, full funding was achieved in 2008 with no further activity until a 2019 petition alleging ongoing violations; the trial court found no constitutional violation on summary judgment. The appellate court vacated that ruling and ordered the consent decree dissolved, holding that the decree's terms limited jurisdiction to the original dispute, which had been resolved, and that changed circumstances after 2008 eliminated any basis for continued enforcement.

civil rightsprocedure

In Lewis v. State, the appellant was convicted of first-degree assault after stabbing the victim, based on evidence including video footage and testimony about his flight from the scene. The appellate court vacated the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the trial court's jury instruction on first-degree assault was legally erroneous because it permitted a conviction on a mens rea of recklessness, whereas the battery form of first-degree assault requires proof of specific intent to cause serious physical injury and cannot be committed recklessly. The court found the error was not harmless due to the instruction's internal inconsistency creating ambiguity for jurors. It also ruled that admitting a slow-motion video excerpt, giving a flight instruction, denying a mutual affray instruction, and excluding certain police officer testimony were not abuses of discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

In Lewis v. State, the appellant was convicted by a jury of first-degree assault after stabbing the victim, based on evidence including a slow-motion video excerpt, flight after the incident, and other testimony. The trial court had instructed the jury on first-degree assault in a manner that permitted conviction based on a mens rea of recklessness. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that this instruction was legally incorrect because the battery form of first-degree assault requires proof of specific intent to cause serious physical injury and cannot be committed recklessly, and the internal inconsistency in the instruction created harmful ambiguity that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court therefore vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. On other issues raised, the court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the video, giving a flight instruction, denying a mutual affray instruction, or excluding irrelevant evidence about a police officer's statement.

criminal lawprocedure

In Walton v. Premier Soccer Club, the plaintiffs sued a youth soccer team, coach, parents, and county employees after a 14-year-old player suffered a concussion during indoor practice, alleging negligence under the Statute or Ordinance Rule for failing to provide required concussion information under Health General § 14-501(b) and for allowing play on an inadequately lit field. The circuit court granted summary judgment to some defendants on the statutory claim for lack of proximate causation, excluded evidence of the statute at trial, and the jury returned a defense verdict on the lighting claim. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that even assuming a statutory violation, the plaintiffs failed to show proximate causation because the required information was general post-injury guidance that would not have altered the outcome where the player was immediately removed and received proper care. The court also upheld the evidentiary and jury instruction rulings as they followed from the causation determination.

torts & liability

In Street v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, the plaintiffs sued an emergency medicine physician and a vascular surgeon (and their entities) for medical negligence and lack of informed consent after the patient suffered right lower extremity ischemia leading to a below-the-knee amputation. The trial court granted judgment for the emergency physician on the informed consent claim, and the jury returned a defense verdict on the remaining claims. The appellate court affirmed the judgments for the emergency physician and related defendants, holding that the physicians were not in related specialties for expert testimony purposes, that informed consent does not require disclosure of non-recommended treatments, that separate peremptory strikes were proper due to adverse positions, and that the proximate cause jury instruction was correct. It vacated the judgment for the vascular surgeon, reasoning that an internal practice rule does not establish the national standard of care for consultation timing, and remanded for further proceedings.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by a teenage soccer player and her parents against a youth soccer club, coach, team parents, and county employees after the player suffered a concussion during an indoor practice by hitting her head on the surrounding wall. The plaintiffs claimed negligence based on failure to provide required concussion information under Health General § 14-501(b) and on inadequate field lighting. The trial court granted summary judgment to some defendants on the statutory claim for lack of proximate causation and allowed the lighting claim to proceed to trial, where the jury returned a verdict for the defense. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgments, reasoning that there was no evidence that providing the statutory information would have prevented the injury, as the required materials focused on general awareness and post-injury care, which did not apply here since the player was promptly removed from play.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Karen Ellis, the decedent Michael Schappell's stepdaughter, petitioned the Orphans' Court for Montgomery County to be recognized as an equitably adopted child so she could inherit from his intestate estate under Maryland law. The orphans' court denied summary judgment sought by other heirs and transferred factual issues, including the ultimate question of equitable adoption, to the circuit court for a jury trial. The Appellate Court of Maryland vacated the transfer order, holding that equitable adoption is an equitable remedy whose existence, on undisputed first-level facts, is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided by a judge rather than a jury. The court explained that while the ultimate mixed issue could potentially be transferred, it is not subject to jury trial, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that determination.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this criminal case, Elwood Charles Calloway, III was convicted of second-degree assault after striking a ferry worker with his truck when the worker refused to let him board. Calloway appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding cross-examination questions about whether the worker's hospital visit was covered by workers' compensation, which he claimed could show the witness had a financial motive to testify falsely. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of a workers' compensation claim was not relevant to impeach the witness's credibility. The court reasoned that, unlike a tort claim or criminal injuries compensation claim, workers' compensation benefits depend only on an injury occurring in the course of employment and do not require proof of the defendant's intentional or reckless conduct or a criminal conviction. The court also noted that any error would have been harmless.

criminal lawlabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Christopher Linz sued Montgomery County for negligence after a car accident with a county police officer, filing within the statute of limitations. After limitations expired, he sought to amend his complaint under Maryland Rule 2-341(c) to substitute the officer as defendant, arguing a misnomer that would allow the amendment to relate back to the original filing date. The circuit court denied the motion, finding no misnomer or basis for relation back, and entered judgment for the county. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff had not mistakenly sued the county instead of the officer, the officer was neither a real party in interest nor subject to compulsory joinder, and a misunderstanding of immunity and indemnity rules under the Local Government Tort Claims Act did not justify applying the relation back doctrine to avoid the time bar.

proceduretorts & liability