Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
State and Local Government Law Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Criminal Procedure (10)
- Constitutional Law (5)
- Evidence (4)
- Civil Procedure (3)
- Family Law (3)
-
- Torts (3)
- Computer Law (2)
- Estates and Trusts (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Property Law and Real Estate (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Food and Drug Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Juvenile Law (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Medical Jurisprudence (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Maryland (34)
- Maryland law (12)
- Criminal procedure (6)
- Evidence (3)
- Baltimore (2)
-
- Civil procedure (2)
- Criminal justice (2)
- DNA testing (2)
- Divorce (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- Jury (2)
- Marijuana (2)
- Maryland Code (2)
- Pleading (2)
- Post-conviction (2)
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- Statutory interpretation (2)
- Writ of actual innocence (2)
- #metoo (1)
- Abnormally dangerous activity (1)
- Affordable housing (1)
- Article 40 (1)
- Bail hearings (1)
- Baltimore City's Housing Code (1)
- Banking (1)
- Barrister's Club (1)
- Bench conference (1)
- Best Interest of the Child Standard (1)
- Book review (1)
Articles 211 - 234 of 234
Full-Text Articles in State and Local Government Law
Recent Development: Sibug V. State: When A Defendant Is Found Incompetent, A Retrial Does Not Renew His Responsibility To Raise The Issue Of Competency; A Judicial Determination Of Competency Is Required Upon Retrial, Allison Terry
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a defendant who was previously found incompetent must be given a new competency hearing at retrial. Sibug v. State, 445 Md. 265, 319, 126 A.3d 86, 116 (2015). In addition, the defendant does not have to raise the issue of competency anew.
Recent Development: Toms V. Calvary Assembly Of God, Inc.: Noise Resulting From Legally Permissable Fireworks Does Not Constitute An Abnormally Dangerous Activity, And The Application Of Strict Liability Is Inappropriate., Jason C. Parkins
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that noise emitted from a lawful fireworks display did not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity; therefore, the parties were not subject to strict liability. Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc., 446 Md. 543, 569, 132 A.3d 866, 881 (2016).
Recent Development: A Guy Named Moe, Llc V. Chipotle Mexican Grill Of Colo., Llc: A Foreign Limited Liability Company Lacking Compliance With State Registration Requirements May Maintain Suit After Infirmity Is Cured; The Company Must Also Meet The "Person Aggrieved" Requirement Of Standing., Alicia M. Kuhns
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a foreign limited liability company, though unregistered at the time of filing, could resolve its lack of compliance and maintain its action for judicial review. A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colo., LLC, 447 Md. 425, 447, 135 A.3d 492, 505 (2016). The court further held that one does not have standing as a “person aggrieved” based solely on the desire to eliminate business competition. Id. at 453, 135 A.3d at 508.
Recent Developments: Sharp V. State: Despite Not Formally Objecting, Defense Counsel Properly Preserved The Issue Of Whether The Circuit Court Inappropriately Weighed Defendant's Decision Not To Plead Guilty At Sentencing; The Circuit Court Did Not Impermissibly Consider Defendant's Rejection Of The Plea Offer At Sentencing., Colin Campbell
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that defense counsel’s statements conveyed an objection to the circuit court’s perceived consideration of the defendant’s decision not to plead guilty at sentencing. Sharp v. State, 446 Md. 669, 113 A.3d 1089 (2016). As a result, the court held that defense counsel sufficiently preserved the issue for appellate review. Id. at 684, 113 A.3d at 1098. Ultimately, though, the circuit court’s statements at sentencing did not give rise to the inference of an impermissible consideration. Id. at 701, 113 A.3d at 1108.
Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State may appeal a trial court’s suppression of a victim’s dying declaration based on the legislative intent of Section 12-302(c)(4)(i) of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Procedure Article (“section 12-302(c)(4)(i)”). Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 497-98, 113 A.3d 608, 613-14 (2015). The court further held that a victim’s statement, made while on life support, was a dying declaration regardless of the fact that the victim died two years after making the statement. Id. at 506, 113 A.3d at 618. Finally, the court held that the Confrontation Clause of the …
Recent Development: Sublet V. State: Authentication Of Evidence From Social Networking Websites Requires A Trial Judge To Find Sufficient Proof From Which A Reasonable Juror Could Conclude That The Evidence Is What The Proponent Claims It To Be, Denise A. Blake
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, in three consolidated cases, held that a trial judge must determine that evidence from a social networking website meets the “reasonable juror” standard of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility. Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 678, 113 A.3d 695, 722 (2015). This standard requires a preliminary determination by the trial judge that a reasonable juror could find the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.
Recent Development: Espina V. Jackson: The Local Government Tort Claims Act Limits Local Government's Liability For Constitutional Tort Claims Committed By Its Employees; Local Government Employees Acting With Actual Malice Are Liable For Their Own Torts; And Multiple Wrongful Death Actions Arising From The Same Underlying Conduct May Be Aggregated For Purposes Of The Damages Cap, Kristin E. Shields
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the damages cap of the Local Government Tort Claims Act (“LGTCA”) limits a local government’s liability for damages caused by an employee’s tortious act in violation of the state constitution. Espina v. Jackson, 442 Md. 311, 317, 112 A.3d 442, 446 (2015). The court also held that this limitation does not contradict the supremacy of the state constitution. Id. at 335, 112 A.3d at 456. Furthermore, the court held the LGTCA damages cap is not an unreasonable restriction on the right to remedy under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. …
Recent Development: State V. Hunt: A Petitioner Who Files For A Writ Of Actual Innocence Has The Right To A Hearing Based On Newly Discovered Evidence When The Pleading Substantially Complies With Md. Crim. Proc. § 8-301 And Md. Rule 4-332, Daniel M. Weir
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, when petitioners substantially complied with the pleading requirements under Section 8-301 of the Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article (“section 8-301”) and Maryland Rule 4-332.
Recent Development: Antonio V. Ssa Sec., Inc.: Upon Exhausting All Other Tools Of Statutory Interpretation, Policy Considerations Revealed That The Maryland Legislature Did Not Intend To Abrogate The Common Law Doctrine Of Respondeat Superior Through The Enactment Of § 19-501 Of The Maryland Security Guards Act, David Bronfein
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Maryland Security Guards Act, Section 19-501 of the Maryland Code, Business Occupations and Professions Article (“section 19-501”) does not expand a security guard agency’s liability for unauthorized employee conduct; rather, the statute remains consistent with the liability prescribed by Maryland’s common law doctrine of respondeat superior. Antonio v. SSA Sec., Inc., 442 Md. 67, 90, 110 A.3d 654, 667 (2015). Finding the plain language, context, and legislative history of the statute to be ambiguous and unconvincing, the court was ultimately persuaded by policy considerations behind upholding the common law doctrine of …
Recent Development: State V. Yancey: Denial Of A Defendant's Request To Be Present During A Voir Dire Bench Conference With A Juror Who Is Later Selected To Serve Is Not A Harmless Error, Shannon A. Stern
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the denial of a defendant’s request to be present at voir dire bench conferences is not harmless error when a prospective juror disclosed information of potential bias and was selected to sit on the jury without input from the defendant. State v. Yancey, 442 Md. 616, 617, 113 A.3d 685, 686 (2015). The court determined that the State did not meet its burden of proving the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recent Development: Garner V. State: The Unit Of Prosecution For Use Of A Handgun In The Commission Of A Crime Of Violence Is The Crime Of Violence, Not The Victim Or Criminal Transaction; The Evidence Corroborated Two Separate Handgun Convictions; And The Trial Court's One-Year Sentence For The Second Use Of A Handgun Conviction Was Illegal, Ashlyn J. Campos
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the unit of prosecution for Section 4-204 of the Maryland Code, Criminal Law Article (“section 4-204”) is the individual crime of violence, not the victim or criminal transaction. Garner v. State, 442 Md. 226, 230, 112 A.3d 392, 394 (2015). The court of appeals further held that separate handgun convictions are permitted when evidence supports multiple crimes or felonies. Id. at 244, 112 A.3d at 402. Finally, the court held that a trial court does not possess the discretion to impose a sentence less than the mandatory five year minimum prescribed by …
Recent Development: In Re Tyrell A.: Trial Courts Generally May Not Order Restitution To An Individual Whose Voluntary Participation In A Crime Or Delinquent Act Results In Injury, Andrew Middleman
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Sections 11-601(j) and 11- 603(a) of the Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, do not authorize trial courts to order restitution to an individual who suffers an injury while voluntarily participating in a crime or delinquent act, “absent exceptional circumstances.” In re Tyrell A., 442 Md. 354, 383, 112 A.3d 468, 485 (2015). Accordingly, the court of appeals vacated a juvenile court’s restitution order to an individual who suffered nasal injuries while participating in the common law offense of affray.
A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Online: "Do Not Track" Legislation, Alicia Shelton
A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Online: "Do Not Track" Legislation, Alicia Shelton
University of Baltimore Law Forum
This year marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the World Wide Web (“Web”), and more than 81% of Americans are now using the internet on a regular basis. Yet, despite the fact that key pieces of personally identifying information—name, address, phone number, email address, and birthday—and sensitive personal data—political opinions, racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, and health—can be learned through tracking an individual’s online activity, there continues to be a void of federal legislation protecting the privacy of internet users. In the absence of federal action, state legislatures are tasked with regulating electronic surveillance by both private companies and the …
Recent Development: Springer V. Erie Ins. Exch.: An Insurer May Not Invoke A Business Pursuit Exclusion To Abandon Its Duty To Defend Without Considering The Continuity And Profit Motive Of Its Insured's Business, Lauren Ellison
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that for a third party complaint to trigger a “business pursuits” exclusion, the insurer must consider the insured’s business continuity and profit motive. Springer v. Erie Ins. Exch., 439 Md. 142, 146, 94 A.3d 75, 78 (2014). The court further held that the allegations made in the third party’s complaint were insufficient to trigger the “business pursuits” exclusion.
University Of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 45 No. 1 (Fall 2014) Front Matter
University Of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 45 No. 1 (Fall 2014) Front Matter
University of Baltimore Law Forum
No abstract provided.
Recent Development: Fuster V. State: An Indigent Petitioner Is Not Entitled To Counsel For A Post Conviction Petition As The Decision Is Within The Court's Discretion, Bradley T. Bald
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Maryland Rule 4-707(b) does not entitle an indigent petitioner to counsel for purposes of a post conviction petition for DNA testing. Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653, 657-58, 89 A.3d 1114, 1116 (2014). In addition, the court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider whether to appoint the petitioner counsel under under section 8-201 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Code. Id. The court further held that the circuit court used the correct legal standard in ruling on the petition. Id. Finally, the court held that …
Recent Development: In Re Victoria C.: Children Are Third Parties For Purposes Of Child Visitation; Siblings Must Make A Prima Facie Case Of Parental Unfitness Or Exceptional Circumstances Before Applying The Best Interest Of Child Standard, Allyson Bloom
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a child is considered a third party for purposes of sibling visitation rights. In re Victoria C., 437 Md. 567, 591, 88 A.3d 749, 764(2014). The court further held that the sibling seeking visitation with a minor sibling must first make a prima facie case showing parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances before the court can apply the best interest of the child standard.
Charm City Televised & Dehumanized: How Cctv Bail Reviews Violate Due Process, Edie Fortuna Cimino, Zina Makar, Natalie Novak
Charm City Televised & Dehumanized: How Cctv Bail Reviews Violate Due Process, Edie Fortuna Cimino, Zina Makar, Natalie Novak
University of Baltimore Law Forum
On May 28, 2013, Torrey Johnson5 struggles to raise both his hands, handcuffed and seated shoulder-to-shoulder between two other defendants in the first row of the closed circuit television (“CCTV” or “videoconference”) bail review hearing room within the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (“Centeral Booking”). There are two more rows of defendants behind Mr. Johnson, all in yellow jumpsuits, being watched by correctional officers. Separated by a three-foot wall, Mr. Johnson’s public defender sits out of sight from the video camera’s field of view, about ten feet away from her client. The judge quickly reads through Mr. Johnson’s rights. …
Recent Development: Barnes V. State: A Suspect's Detention Did Not Evolve Into De Facto Arrest When The Execution Of A Warrant Was Delayed For Three Hours; Police May Detain A Suspect After The Warrant Execution If They Reasonably Suspect Criminal Activity, Harrison Bliss
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a three-hour delay in the execution of a warrant was reasonable and did not constitute de facto arrest. Barnes v. State, 437 Md. 375, 394, 86 A.3d 1246, 1257 (2014). The court of appeals also held that a short investigatory detention, following the execution of the warrant, did not suggest de facto arrest, and therefore did not require probable cause. Id. at 397, 86 A.3d at 1259. Finally, the court held that the evidence collected from the search of an individual’s storage unit was lawfully obtained because the officers had the requisite …
Recent Development: Nash V. State: Jury Note Expressing Concern About Motives Behind A Juroror Ury Note Expressing Concern About Motives Behind A Jurororsumption Of Prejudice Requiring Voir Dire Sua Sponte, Nadya Cheatham
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a note from a jury, containing allegations that a juror would change her original voting position if it meant she could go home earlier, did not raise a presumption of prejudice and therefore did not require the trial judge to conduct voir dire sua sponte. Nash v. State, 439 Md. 53, 94 A.3d 23 (2014). Additionally, the court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she chose to release the jurors and remind them of their duties under oath, rather than directly assuring the impartiality of the jurors. …
Recent Development: Motor Vehicle Admin. V. Deering: A Driver Whose License Is Suspended Under The "Implied Consent, Administrative Per Se Law" Is Not Entitled To Consult With An Attorney Before Deciding Whether To Take A Breath Test, Patrick Toohey
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held the implied consent, administrative per se law (“administrative per se law”) does not require that a suspected drunk driver be given the opportunity to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take a breath test. Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Deering, 438 Md. 611, 637, 92 A.3d 495, 511 (2014). The court found that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not establish a pre-test right to counsel for a suspected drunk driver in an administrative proceeding.
Recent Development: Hamilton V. Kirson: The Court Of Appeals Of Maryland Held That Circumstantial Evidence Offered To Satisfy The Causation Element Of A Prima Facie Claim Of Negligence In Lead Paint Cases Must Demonstrate A Reasonable Probability, Not Mere Possibility, That The Subject Property Was The Cause Of The Lead Exposure, Matthew Stegman
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held, in two consolidated cases, that circumstantial evidence presented to prove injuries from lead paint exposure was insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation.
Recent Development: Blackburn Ltd. P'Ship V. Paul: If A Trespasser Is A Member Of A Specific Class Protected By An Ordinance Or Statute, Property Owners Owe A Duty Of Care Despite Common Law Rule That No Such Duty Is Owed, Ame P. Roberts
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Statute or Ordinance Rule might apply, regardless of the common law duty to trespassers. Blackburn Ltd. P’ship v. Paul, 438 Md. 100, 112, 90 A.3d 464, 471 (2014) (citing Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc., 378 Md. 70, 78, 835 A.2d 616, 620-21 (2003)). The court further concluded that Christopher Paul was a member of the class intended to be protected by statute, and suffered those injuries that the statute sought to prevent. Id. at 126, 90 A.3d at 479. Finally, the court held that a genuine issue of material fact …
Maryland Personal Jurisdiction Law In The Cyberspace Content, Saad Gul
Maryland Personal Jurisdiction Law In The Cyberspace Content, Saad Gul
University of Baltimore Law Forum
A century ago, personal jurisdiction largely hinged on a simple litmus test: the defendant’s presence in the forum state. The issue of personal jurisdiction gained prevalence as the nation evolved from its earlier days of detached, semi-sovereign entities, whose citizens rarely interacted, to a nation where interstate commerce had increased, with interstate litigation growing correspondingly. In Pennoyer v. Neff, the Supreme Court of the United States effectively limited a state’s jurisdiction to persons physically present within its territorial borders. However, in today’s increasingly interconnected world, physical presence appears to represent an anachronism set in the post-Civil War, horse-and-buggy America of …