The MCOA (Maryland Court of Appeals) Blog is presented as a service by the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors.
The Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) is the highest court in the state of Maryland (frequently called the Supreme Court of the state in many other state jurisdictions, as well as in the Federal judicial system). The Chief Judge, the Honorable Robert M. Bell, sits on the Court along with six (6) other associate judges.
The Court of Appeals for Maryland was created by Maryland's Constitution of 1776. The Court has sat (resided) exclusively in Annapolis since 1851. The Court's website is at www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals.
Tinsley v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 26, 2012 - Practice Areas: Constitutional Law, Injury Law:
This consolidated opinion resolved two cases heard by the Court of Appeals concerning the appropriate scope of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) immunity from suit.
In both cases, Veronica Tinsley and Kim Hodge, Petitioners, slipped, fell, and were injured at WMATA operated metrorail stations. Petitioners presented a common question of whether their claims were barred by Section 80 of the WMATA Compact, and Hodge presented an additional question of whether Section 75 of the Compact limited the scope of WMATA's immunity, such that its alleged failure to abide by various County code sections rendered an immunity defense unavailable.
The Court upheld WMATA's immunity from suit, concluding (1) WMATA was immune because its underlying decision regarding proper maintenance procedures was grounded in concerns of economic and public policy; and (2) Hodge's contention that Section 75 waived WMATA's immunity in her case was without merit. (Docket: 25/12, 1/12)
Thomas v. State - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 26, 2012 - Practice Areas: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law:
Petitioner was charged with one count of sexually abusing a minor, two counts of second degree rape, and six counts of second degree sexual offense. Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress statements he had made to police, arguing that he had not been given Miranda warnings at the time he arrived at the police station. The circuit court agreed and suppressed the statements.
The court of special appeals reversed, determining that Petitioner was not in custody at the time he gave the statements at issue.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a belief held by a suspect that police may have probable cause to arrest him or her is not sufficient to render the individual in custody for Miranda purposes; and (2) the motion to suppress Petitioner's statements should have been denied because, given the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner was not in custody at the time he made the statements (Docket: 130/11)
Whitley v. State Bd. of Elections - Maryland Court of Appeals
October 23, 2012 - Practice Areas: Election Law:
Following the passage of Maryland's latest congressional redistricting law, SB 1, Intervenor employed a website-based initiative to gather the signatures necessary to petition SB 1 to referendum on the general election ballot in November 2012.
The State Board of Elections certified the petition for referendum after determining that Intervenor had gathered the required number of valid signatures. Petitioners subsequently challenged the State's Board's certification of the petition on the grounds that Intervenor failed to submit a sufficient number of valid signatures, objecting to two classes of signatures validated by the State Board.
The circuit court affirmed.
The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding (1) petition signatures obtained through the use of a third-party website do not violate the statutory requirement that an individual "include" or "provide" his or her identifying information; and (2) an individual can "self-circulate" a petition by signing both as the voter and as the circulator. (Docket: 133/11)
Citizens Against Slots At The Mall v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC
October 24, 2012 - Practice Areas: Constitutional Law, Election Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use:
This was the latest in a series of opinions by the Court of Appeals involving the constitutional provision and the implementing legislation authorizing a limited number of slot machines at specified Maryland facilities, including facilities in the area of Anne Arundel County (County).
Held, that the Anne Arundel County zoning ordinance allowing video slot machines in certain areas of the county was not an appropriation ordinance and, therefore, was subject to a referndum under the Anne Arundel County Charter.
[www.facebook.com/Justia.Maryland; www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals; www.leagle.com/ Citizens Against Slots...; thedailyrecord.com/2012/11/04/Opinions/ Maryland Court of Appeals; Marylandcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/ October 25, 2012]
No comments:
Post a Comment