NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are taken up by the Court. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).
Click on the column title to sort by that column.
| Case No. | Year | Petitioner | Respondent | Cert. Granted | Oral Arguments | Opinion Filed | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
015 | 2025 | Hallam | New Life Evang. Baptist Church | 2025-05-22 | 2025-10-06 [Oral Arguments] | 2026-06-22 [Opinion] | Real Property – 1) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents were able to raise their claim of fraud in post-sale exceptions filed pursuant to Rule 14-305(e)? 2) Did ACM err in holding that Respondents had preserved their right to raise their claim of fraud post-sale where they had failed to perfect their right to litigate the same fraud claim pre-sale? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 860, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) |
048 | 2025 | Founds | State | 2025-11-24 | 2026-03-10 [Oral Arguments] The oral arguments in this matter were held at Harford Community College, Bel Air, Maryland. | 2026-08-07 [Opinon] | Criminal Law – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the trial court’s denial of Mr. Founds’s motion to suppress evidence? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support Mr. Founds’s convictions for three possessory offenses? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2266, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) |
049 | 2025 | Eritrean Orth. Tweahdo Diocese | Sinoda | 2025-12-19 | 2026-04-08 [Oral Arguments] | 2026-07-23 [Opinion] | Real Property – Did the Circuit Court err when it affirmed the District Court’s judgment dismissing petitioner’s wrongful detainer action under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine? Circuit Court for Prince George's County, No. C-16-CV-25-000957. |
021 | 2026 | State Board of Elections | Howell | 2026-09-03 [Oral Arguments] | 2026-09-03 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. | |
022 | 2026 | State Board of Elections | Wheatley | 2026-09-03 [Oral Arguments] | 2026-09-03 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. | |
005 | 2026 | Hammond | State | 2026-05-22 | 2026-09-04 [Oral Arguments] | Criminal Procedure – 1) As a matter of first impression, can forgetting to register for the Maryland sex offender registry serve as a defense to a charge of “knowingly” failing to register under Criminal Procedure Article § 11-721(a) and, if so, under what circumstances? 2) Did the trial court err in convicting Petitioner of knowingly failing to register after finding as a fact that Petitioner forgot to register? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 615, Sept. Term, 2024 [Opinion] | |
006 | 2026 | DARCARS Toyota | Blackwell | 2026-05-22 | 2026-09-04 [Oral Arguments] | Torts – Did the Appellate Court err in reversing the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment on the premises liability claim? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1322, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | |
024 | 2026 | Russell | State Board of Elections | 2026-09-04 [Oral Arguments] | 2026-09-04 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. | |
061ag | 2025 | Reinstatement of Thomas-Bellamy to the Bar | 2026-09-08 [Oral Arguments] | In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Sandy F. Thomas-Bellamy to the Bar of Maryland | |||
011ag | 2025 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Conlon | 2026-09-08 [Oral Arguments] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
001 | 2026 | Lakeview Loan Serv. | Baxter | 2026-02-20 | 2026-09-08 [Oral Arguments] | Commercial Law – 1) Does the definition of “credit grantor” contained in Maryland’s Closed End Credit Provisions (CLECs) (§§ 12-1001 to 1030 of the Commercial Law Article) encompass mortgage loan servicers like Petitioners, or is it limited to owners of the loan (including any subsequent assignees who purchased the loan)? 2) Given the CLEC’s carveout for fees associated with first-priority residential mortgage loans, did the telephone convenience fees that Petitioner charged Respondent violate the statute? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 691, Sept. Term, 2024 [Opinion] | |
003 | 2026 | Unnamed Attorney | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | 2026-04-24 | 2026-09-08 [Oral Arguments] | Court Rules - 1) Is the circuit court's order denying the motion to quash Bar Counsel's subpoena appealable? 2) Did the circuit court err in denying the motion to quash the subpoena? No. C-24-CV-25-003532, Circuit Court for Baltimore City. | |
017ag | 2025 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Saleh | 2026-09-09 [Oral Arguments] | 2026-09-11 [PC Order] | Attorney disciplinary matter. | |
041 | 2025 | Meek-Freeman | State | 2026-09-09 [Oral Arguments] | DNA appeal. | ||
025 | 2026 | Sweat | Prince George's Cnty. Board of Elections | 2026-09-09 [Oral Arguments] | 2026-09-09 [PC Order] | Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law. | |
002 | 2026 | Wilson | State | 2026-03-09 | 2026-10-01 | Criminal Law – 1) When a criminal defendant presents evidence that he acted under an honest but mistaken belief of facts which, if true, would negate the mental state elements required for murder, may a trial court refuse a requested mistake-of-fact instruction on the ground that the concept is “fairly covered” by general instructions on perfect and imperfect self-defense? (from the petition for writ of certiorari). 2) Did ACM err because the mistake-of-fact jury instructions, as applied in this case, was not supported by “some evidence” to generate the instruction and because, even if the instruction were generated, it would not be error not to give it if it was fairly covered by the self-defense instruction? (from the cross-petition). Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2293, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
004 | 2026 | Gaskill | Lewis | 2026-05-22 | 2026-10-01 | Torts – 1) Whether this Court should overrule Southern Management Corp. v. Taha, 378 Md. 461 (2003) and adopt the same standard in civil and criminal cases as set forth in the concurring opinion in Price v. State, 405 Md. 10 (2008) and in Givens v. State, 449 Md. 433 (2016) for determining whether an allegedly inconsistent verdict is preserved for appellate review. 2) Whether the Appellate Court of Maryland erred in holding that the jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent under the Maryland Tort Claims Act and that the circuit court abused its discretion in approving the verdict sheet that allowed that inconsistent verdict. 3) Whether the Appellate Court of Maryland erred in holding that the jury instruction regarding one’s right to disagree with a police officer based on Diehl v. State, 294 Md. 466 (1982) is an incorrect statement of law and is not applicable to this case challenging unlawful police conduct. Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2057, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
012 AG | 2025 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Bishop | 2026-10-02 | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
007 | 2026 | Anderson | State | 2026-06-18 | 2026-10-02 | Criminal Law – 1) Did defense counsel’s objection preserve an exception to testimony that Baltimore City police have a “truth-telling” policy? 2) As a matter of first impression, does Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145 (2005), allow a detective to bolster police witness credibility by telling jurors there is a “departmental policy” requiring police to tell the truth, and that detectives are “subject to termination” if they lie? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1999, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
009 | 2026 | Crowder | State | 2026-06-18 | 2026-10-02 | Criminal Law – 1) Does the ACM’s holding in Logan v. State, 164 Md. App. 1 (2006), control whether the trial court must conduct voir dire on whether the venire has strong feelings on an anticipated defense or does the SCM’s later decision affirming Logan control? 2) When the only issue in a murder trial is the viability of a defense, must a court, on request, probe the venire’s bias against that defense? 3) In voir dire, are defenses ever a mandated area of inquiry? 4) Did the trial court err in refusing to ask the venire about strong feelings on deadly force in self-defense or defense of others? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1565, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
002jd | 2025 | In the Matter of Hon. Gipson | 2026-10-05 | Judicial disabilities matter. | |||
008 | 2026 | Elliott | State | 2026-06-18 | 2026-10-05 | Criminal Law – 1) For purposes of determining whether a prospective juror should be excused for cause, does a rebuttable presumption of bias arise where the juror discloses during voir dire that she was the victim of a crime very similar to the crime charged in the case on trial? 2) Where Petitioner was charged with assaulting his wife and mother-in-law with a firearm, did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse for cause a prospective juror who was the victim of a very similar act of domestic violence in a case then pending before the same trial judge? 3) Did ACM err in holding that Petitioner failed to preserve the argument that the trial court insufficiently questioned the prospective juror? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1091, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | |
010 | 2026 | Corenic Const. Grp. | Single Point Const. | 2026-06-18 | 2026-10-05 | Contracts – 1) Did ACM improperly interpret unambiguous contract terms to relieve Respondent of obligations it assented to, but subsequently changed its mind about or regretted? 2) Did ACM exceed its authority by sua sponte vacating a decision of the trial court that was not raised by either party on appeal or in its appeal briefing? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2284, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | |
026 AG | 2025 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Brown | 2026-11-02 | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
017 | 2026 | Garlitz | State | 2026-7-17 | 2026-11-02 | Criminal Law – Can a reasonable probability of tampering be negated in order to authenticate evidence pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-901 where a controlled purchase involves a confidential informant, who is subsequently unavailable to testify and whose transaction cannot be corroborated by police? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 368, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | |
014 AG | 2025 | Attorney Grievance Comm'n | Boykin | 2026-11-04 | Attorney disciplinary matter. | ||
014 | 2026 | Harford Cnty. | Penman | 2026-7-17 | 2026-11-04 | Local Government – Is Respondent, a sheriff’s deputy, disqualified by Charter § 207 from simultaneously holding office as a County Councilmember and a deputy because Respondent’s employment as a deputy is employment by the government of the State of Maryland? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2182, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | |
011 | 2026 | State | J.C. | 2026-06-23 | 2026-11-09 | Torts – Where the Child Victims Act of 2023 expands only the “time for filing” a child sex abuse claim, does sovereign immunity continue to bar any such claim against the State that arose prior to July 1, 1982, the effective date of the Maryland Tort Claims Act’s limited sovereign immunity waiver? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 75, Sept. Term, 2026 (pending) | |
015 | 2026 | State | Smith | 2026-7-17 | 2026-11-09 | Criminal Procedure – 1) Under New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000), does defense counsel’s active participation in selecting a trial date outside the Interstate Agreement on Detainers’ 180-day period constitute a waiver of the statutory time limits? 2) Does the IAD require an open-court good cause finding or verbatim contemporaneous recording of a scheduling discussion as a prerequisite to finding waiver, even when the State proffers and the defense concedes that the parties and court jointly selected a trial date beyond the 180-day period? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1736, Sept. Term, 2024 [Opinion] | |
001 Misc. | 2026 | A.G. | N. Amer. Div. of Seventh Day Adventists | Certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland Assuming that Maryland's statute of limitations laws must be applied to the instant tort claims, does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, Md. Code Ann., CJP § 5-117, apply to claims of sexual abuse by a plaintiff, where that plaintiff suffered the abuse as a minor, where that plaintiff is not currently and was not at the time the abuse occurred a Maryland resident, where the abuse occurred outside of Maryland, and where the defendants are Maryland entities who are alleged to be principals of the perpetrators of the abuse? | |||
012 | 2026 | Dell | Clarke | 2026-7-17 | Real Property – Does a party to a foreclosure action who elects not to pursue a permitted interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to stay a foreclosure sale forfeit appellate review of that order on a later appeal from the final judgment ratifying the sale? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1862, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | ||
013 | 2026 | Cheung | Howard Hughes Med. Institute | 2026-7-17 | Civil Procedure – Was it an abuse of discretion under Rule 2-341, directing that “[a]mendments shall be freely allowed when justice so permits,” to deny leave to reassert previously dismissed counts when discovery revealed new evidence supporting those counts? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2290, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
016 | 2026 | Jacobsen | Porter | 2026-7-17 | Corporations & Associations – From the petition: Whether, consistent with Rule 8-131(a), an appellate court can order a remand based on a legal theory that was not raised, argued or preserved in the trial court. From the cross-petition: 1) Do managing members of an LLC owe a duty of candor to another managing member when convening a board meeting to vote on that member’s removal? 2) Is a managing member harmed when co-managers deceive him about the purpose of a removal meeting, depriving him of the ability to prepare a defense or protect his ownership interest? 3) Does the entire-fairness standard apply to conflicted transactions by managing members of an LLC absent an express provision in the operating agreement, and if so, was it satisfied here? 4) Did the lower courts misapply the doctrine of unclean hands as a basis for denying equitable relief? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 2290, Sept. Term, 2023 (unreported) | ||
018 | 2026 | Sinai Hospital of Balt. | Caples | 2026-08-20 | Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Did the Appellate Court erroneously apply Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 5-609? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1527, Sept. Term, 2024 [Opinion] | ||
019 | 2026 | State | Murray | 2026-08-20 | Criminal Law – 1) Where evidence, such as a social media message, is subject to competing inferences, is that evidence irrelevant as a matter of law, as ACM found, or is that evidence subject to the usual balancing of probative value versus unfair prejudice under Maryland Rule 5-403? 2) Is a trial court’s determination of relevance under Maryland Rule 5-401 reviewed de novo, for abuse of discretion, or under a bifurcated approach? 3) Did the trial court properly admit Respondent’s social media message? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 701, Sept. Term, 2024 (unreported) | ||
020 | 2026 | Leone | Leone | 2026-08-20 | Maryland Rules – 1) When a trial judge has heard testimony from all witnesses and admitted evidence during a trial, but recuses themself before issuing a final judgment, does the subsequent judge have the discretion to issue a final judgment on all remaining issues if they have carefully reviewed the evidence admitted as well as the transcript and audio recording of all testimony? 2) Did ACM err by relying on jurisprudence from sister states which have adopted a federal rule that is not analogous to Md. Rule 2-536? 3) Did ACM err in vacating those portions of the trial court’s order that were supported by uncontested facts, such as the issuance of the judgment of divorce itself? 4) Should ACM have required the initial judge’s basis for recusal to be put on the record, when Respondent acknowledged that a party who causes a recusal cannot then seek a mistrial? Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1476, Sept. Term, 2025 (unreported) |