Robert Fischer

The case concerned whether Peter Kahl's facility for breeding, raising, and selling exotic snakes on his 4.72-acre property in Baltimore County qualified as a 'farm' permitted under RC-4 'Resource Conservation—Watershed Protection' zoning. Neighbors and the People's Counsel appealed after the County Board of Appeals approved the use, and the circuit court reversed that decision as a matter of law. The Court of Special Appeals applied the substantial evidence standard to review the Board's factual findings that the operation involved raising, breeding, keeping, and marketing animals in a manner consistent with farm activities, while noting deference to the agency's interpretation of the zoning regulations it administers. The court considered undisputed facts about the barn-like structure, temperature-controlled rooms, on-site rat breeding for feed, and lack of community safety issues. It ultimately addressed whether the Board's conclusion should be reinstated based on the record.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a declaratory judgment action to determine insurance coverage for Melody Lowe following a 1996 motor vehicle accident in which she collided with another driver while operating a car owned by Bob Bell Automotive Group and provided for her parents' use. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, Bell's insurer, sought a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Ms. Lowe under its policy, while Ms. Lowe moved for summary judgment asserting coverage under the policy's garage or auto parts based on her parents' permission. The court examined the policy language in Parts 500 and 900 regarding the scope of permission, ruled that extrinsic evidence about Bell's restrictions on use was admissible to show lack of permission, and addressed whether the allegations potentially triggered a duty to defend.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned Clarence Elmer Ross, Jr., who was convicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after a jury trial. Ross appealed, arguing that the State violated Maryland’s 180-day rule under Art. 27, § 591 and Md. Rule 4-271 by entering a nolle prosequi on the original charges when its request for a continuance was denied by the administrative judge, then reindicting him so that trial occurred after the original deadline had passed. The appellate court agreed that the State had used the nolle prosequi to circumvent the mandatory 180-day period, which therefore ran from the first indictment; because trial did not occur until after that period expired, the court reversed the convictions and remanded with directions to dismiss the charges.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a 1992 petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed by Robert Donnell Jones to vacate his 1975 guilty plea to assault with intent to murder on grounds that the plea was involuntary due to heroin influence. After the petition was denied, the circuit court granted a belated appeal, but the appellate court addressed whether such an appeal from coram nobis denial is permissible under the Post Conviction Procedure Act and whether relief was warranted. The court held that coram nobis remains available only where no other statutory remedy exists and affirmed the denial of relief, reasoning that a facially valid conviction carries a presumption of regularity, the appellant failed to meet his burden of proof with evidence such as transcripts, and coram nobis cannot relitigate facts already decided at the original proceeding. The judgment denying the petition was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a fatal 1992 car accident on Interstate 83 in which Barbara Goren's vehicle crossed the median and was struck by oncoming traffic; her husband sued the driver of a nearby vehicle for negligence, the insurer under uninsured motorist coverage for a possible phantom driver, a construction company for negligent shoulder grading, and the State Highway Administration via third-party claim. After a jury found no liability for any defendant and deemed the decedent contributorily negligent, the appeal challenged evidentiary rulings and jury selection procedures. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge improperly allowed a lay police witness to offer expert opinions on accident causation and that adverse co-defendants should not have been permitted to confer when exercising peremptory challenges, though the interests were correctly deemed adverse for allocating strikes.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Miller v. Bosley, the mother appealed an interlocutory order that granted pendente lite custody of the parties' child to the father's sister, a non-party who had not been joined in the custody action between the parents. The trial court adopted a master's recommendation for immediate transfer of custody based on doubts about both parents' fitness and credibility. The appellate court vacated the order and remanded, holding that the record was inadequate for review, the master had not properly notified or involved the parents regarding third-party custody, and the chancellor was required to exercise independent judgment rather than defer to the master's findings without exceptions or a sufficient hearing. The decision emphasized the legal presumption favoring natural parents absent a showing of unfitness or exceptional circumstances detrimental to the child.

family lawprocedure

In this case, a longtime Montgomery County firefighter sought service-connected disability retirement benefits after developing osteoarthritis that was aggravated by his job duties, which included physically demanding tasks like climbing ladders and carrying stretchers. The Merit System Protection Board granted a temporary nonservice-connected disability retirement but denied the service-connected claim, finding that the underlying degenerative condition—not the work-related aggravation—was the natural and proximate cause of his permanent incapacity. The circuit court affirmed, and the Court of Special Appeals upheld that ruling after reviewing the administrative record. The court interpreted the county code to require that any work aggravation be the sole proximate cause of total disability, rather than merely contributing to a preexisting condition, and found substantial evidence supported the board's conclusion that the firefighter's other daily activities also exacerbated his osteoarthritis.

labor & employment

This case involved Anthony McNeil, charged with armed robbery and attempted murder, after the trial court suppressed his confession as tainted by improper police questioning before Miranda warnings. The State filed an interlocutory appeal under C.J. § 12-302(c)(3), certifying the evidence's materiality and lack of delay motive, but later attempted to withdraw it without proper filing in the appellate court, leading to disputes over whether the trial could proceed. McNeil argued that the abandonment required dismissal of the prosecution, exclusion of evidence gathered during the appeal, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the appeal was pending; he also challenged limits on cross-examination. The Court of Special Appeals remanded the first two issues for further proceedings and rejected the jurisdictional and confrontation claims, finding the trial court retained authority and no improper restriction occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a homeowner's insurance policy required Aetna to defend and indemnify Aaron against a suit by his condominium council seeking reimbursement for repairs to a leaking glass enclosure on Aaron's unit, which had caused water damage to a neighbor's unit and common areas. The trial court granted summary judgment for Aaron on the duty to defend and related fees. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy's liability coverage for property damage applied because the repairs addressed imminent harm to third-party property, and the owned-property exclusion did not bar coverage under those circumstances; it also upheld the duty to defend based on the allegations in the underlying complaint.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by Mary Tuer against cardiac surgeons after her husband died from a heart attack the day after emergency bypass surgery; the plaintiff alleged negligence in discontinuing the anticoagulant Heparin and failing to restart it when surgery was delayed. The trial court excluded evidence of the defendants' post-incident change in Heparin protocol, certain other patient records, and a rebuttal witness, and the jury returned a verdict for the doctors. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Maryland Rule 5-407 barred admission of the subsequent remedial measure because feasibility of restarting Heparin was not genuinely controverted and the evidence was not proper impeachment, while the other evidentiary rulings fell within the trial court's discretion. The core reasoning centered on the policy against using later safety changes to prove negligence and the absence of any abuse of discretion in managing the trial evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned the interpretation of Maryland Rule S74Ad. regarding the deadline for filing exceptions to a master's recommendations in a domestic relations matter involving divorce, custody, child support, and visitation. The Circuit Court dismissed the appellant's exceptions as untimely, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that under the rule, when the master provides oral recommendations on the record at the hearing, the five-day period for filing exceptions begins then, rather than from the subsequent service of a written report, even if the written report is consistent with the oral findings.

family lawprocedure

In Price v. State, Tyrone Price appealed his convictions after a jury trial for carjacking and theft of property valued over $300, arguing insufficient evidence of force or intimidation to support the carjacking and that theft should merge into carjacking as a lesser-included offense, precluding a separate sentence. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the convictions and sentences from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. The court held that the evidence, including the victim's testimony of being approached aggressively and fleeing, was sufficient to show the car was taken by putting her in fear through intimidation or threat of force, despite a preservation issue on appeal. It further reasoned that the crimes require distinct elements under Maryland statutes, with carjacking involving force or threat not required for theft, so separate punishments were permissible without violating double jeopardy principles.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant James Desmond Jones, who was charged with possession of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute, along with a parallel civil forfeiture action seeking his truck and cash; he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from police surveillance at a tavern and the rejection of his double jeopardy claim based on the forfeiture proceeding. The court affirmed the circuit court's rulings, holding that the motion to suppress was properly denied and that double jeopardy principles did not require dismissal of the criminal charges. The core reasoning was that officers' observations during surveillance, supported by reliable informant tips, established grounds for the arrest and evidence seizure, while precedents established that civil forfeiture under the relevant statute is not punishment triggering double jeopardy protections.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

In Ball v. Martin, a passenger injured in a car accident sued the estate of her deceased sister, the driver, seeking damages for her injuries. The plaintiff appealed the jury's nominal verdict, raising claims that the trial court mishandled her Batson challenges to the defendant's peremptory strikes of one African American juror and three female jurors, improperly allowed mention of the fact that she was suing her sister's estate, and unduly restricted cross-examination of the defense expert witness. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant had provided race-neutral reasons for the strikes sufficient to overcome the Batson objection, that gender discrimination was not properly preserved or ruled upon at trial, and that the trial judge had not abused discretion in the evidentiary matters.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case was a paternity action in which appellee sought to establish that appellant Donald Toft fathered her child (born while she was married to another man) and to obtain a child-support order. A jury found Toft to be the father after blood-test evidence was admitted showing a 99.9% probability of paternity and excluding 99.96% of falsely accused men; the trial court then entered a support order. On appeal the court affirmed, ruling that the blood-test report was properly admitted, that the statutory presumption of legitimacy had been rebutted by the genetic evidence, and that no error occurred in the jury instructions or the immediate follow-on support hearing.

family lawprocedure

In Wagner v. Wagner, the Circuit Court for Carroll County awarded permanent custody of the parties' two minor children to the father following years of divorce and custody litigation marked by repeated motions, visitation disputes, and allegations of abuse. The mother appealed, contending that inadequate notice of hearings violated her due process rights, that the father failed to prove a change in circumstances justifying modification of custody, and that the trial court erred in rulings on issues including voluntary impoverishment, in camera child interviews, counsel fees, and venue transfer. The appellate court outlined the case's extensive procedural history, stressed that the best interests of the children governed all custody and visitation decisions, and addressed the mother's multiple claims under constitutional due process standards and family law requirements.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Claggett v. State, the appellant was convicted of assault with intent to prevent lawful apprehension under Md. Code art. 27 §386 and common law battery after stealing liquor from a store and driving toward a co-owner who tried to stop him from fleeing. The court determined that the trial judge's jury instruction was not plainly erroneous, as the statute does not require the victim to be a police officer, and that the evidence was sufficient because the store owners were lawfully attempting to detain the defendant. On sentencing, the court held that the battery conviction merged into the assault conviction under the rule of lenity and fundamental fairness considerations, since both arose from the same act, and therefore vacated the separate battery sentence while affirming the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Frances Wilson's claims against Montgomery Ward Stores and its loss prevention manager Jeffrey Bresnahan for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, stemming from her arrest on credit card theft charges based on statements from coworkers about unauthorized charges made at the store; the charges were later dismissed, and Wilson lost her job as a result. A jury found the defendants liable and awarded her $15,000 in compensatory damages and $45,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the defendants challenged the denial of their motion for judgment, the jury instructions permitting punitive damages, and the exclusion of certain evidence, with the court reviewing the investigation details, witness interviews, and lack of corroborating evidence like handwriting analysis or probable cause assessment.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved William Karl suing his estranged wife and her insurance company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland, for insurance benefits under her policy. After Karl failed to fully respond to discovery requests, the insurance company filed a motion for sanctions including dismissal of the complaint and requested a hearing on the motion. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without holding the scheduled hearing. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Maryland Rule 2-311(f), a hearing must be provided when requested on a motion that is dispositive of a claim or defense, such as this sanctions motion seeking dismissal.

procedure

In Wells v. State, a child through his adoptive parents sued Maryland and various Department of Social Services employees after suffering repeated abuse from his mother and her boyfriend over several years, alleging that the defendants failed to adequately investigate reports or protect him as required by state child protection laws. The complaint included counts for gross negligence, violations of federal rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on due process, and state constitutional due process claims. The circuit court dismissed the claims, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead gross negligence sufficiently, that state child protection statutes and regulations did not create an enforceable duty supporting the claims, and that violations of state-mandated procedures did not constitute a deprivation of property or liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Maryland Constitution. The court reasoned that elevating procedural requirements from state law to constitutional entitlements would improperly constitutionalize every state procedure.

civil rightstorts & liabilityfamily law