Dear House Judiciary Committee: In Questioning William Barr, Employ the Ethics Complaint That 27 Distinguished DC Lawyers Filed Wednesday

FREDERICK BARON, DENNIS AFTERGUT, AUSTIN SARAT

Frederick Baron, former associate deputy attorney general and director of the Executive Office for National Security in the Department of Justice, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, and Austin Sarat, Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College, call upon the House Judiciary Committee to carefully read the ethics complaint by 27 distinguished DC lawyers against William Barr before questioning him today, July 28, 2020.

Read More

7222 Ambassador Road, LLC v. National Center on Institutions & Alternatives, Inc.

Docket: 66/19

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Robert N. McDonald

Areas of Law: Business Law

The Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal concerning compliance with the law governing Maryland LLCs, holding that this appeal was not properly before the Court. Petitioner 7222 Ambassador Road, LLC initiated this action against Respondent National Center for Institutions and Alternatives, Inc. Respondent prevailed in the circuit court and the court of special appeals. Before Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals it forfeited its right to do business in Maryland and failed to reverse that forfeiture. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the forfeiture. The Court of Appeals granted the motion to dismiss, holding that, as a result of Petitioner's forfeiture of its right to do business in Maryland, it lost the ability to prosecute this action during the period of forfeiture, including the filing of a timely petition for a writ of certiorari.

Lewis v. State

Docket: 44/19

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Barbera J.

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Court of Appeals held that the odor of marijuana on or about a person, without more, does not provide law enforcement officers with probable cause to arrest and perform a warrantless search of that person incident to the arrest. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he was unlawfully seized and subjected to a search incident to arrest. In denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the suppression court ruled that the odor of marijuana gave police probable cause to arrest Defendant and, incident to the arrest, conduct a full search of Defendant's person. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the mere odor of marijuana emanating from a person, without more, does not provide the police with probable cause to support an arrest and a search of the arrestee; and (2) because the search of Petitioner was based solely on the odor of marijuana emanating from his person, the officer lacked the requisite probable cause to conduct that search.

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Geppert

Docket: 61/19

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Robert N. McDonald

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Court of Appeals held that a circuit court asked to enforce an administrative order based on a final administrative decision under the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is not precluded from considering whether the relief ordered would violate the law on which the administrative decision is based. The Motor Vehicle Administration denied Karl Geppert's application for a learner's permit because he did not have a social security number. Geppert, however, was eligible for a social security number. An administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered that a learner's permit be issued to Geppert. Geppert requested a writ of mandamus to enforce the ALJ's ruling. The circuit court concluded that the ALJ's decision was based on an incorrect legal premise and denied the writ. The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that the circuit court was barred from considering the legal soundness of the ALJ's decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the circuit court did not err in declining to afford binding effect to the ALJ's erroneous legal conclusions.

Berry v. Queen

Dockets: 10m/19, 63 / 19

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Getty

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

In two cases involving similar underlying facts and an identical legal issue the Court of Appeals held that the phrase "damage to property," incorporated by reference in the uninsured motorist statute, requires an insurer to reimburse loss of use damages, such as rental car costs, to an insured. At issue was whether the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code Ann., Ins. 19-509(e)(1) and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver. The Court of Appeals held that the phrase "damage to property," as incorporated by reference in the uninsured motorist statute, embraces loss of use damages caused by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance.

Steamfitter's Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Docket: 40/19

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Booth

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs - a property owner, its insurers, and the subrogee of another property owner - and against Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 after a fire started on Steamfitters' property caused damage to neighboring properties, holding the the trial court did not err. The fire started on a mulched strip of common area where Steamfitters' apprentices regularly congregated and discarded hundreds of cigarette butts. Plaintiffs filed a negligence complaint against Steamfitters. Steamfitters filed a third-party complaint against the Heating, Piping and Refrigeration Training Fund (Training Fund) alleging contractual indemnification, common law indemnification, and contribution. As to the issue of contractual indemnification, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Training Fund. As to the case against Steamfitters, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Plaintiffs. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Steamfitters had a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its property in a manner that would not cause an unreasonable risk of the spread of fire from cigarette butts habitually discarded in combustible material; and (2) Steamfitters was not entitled to relief on its remaining allegations of error.