Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Law digest: 6/4/12

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

Criminal Procedure, Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act: Because the “listening post” where the law enforcement officers first heard communications intercepted from defendant’s cell phone was within the geographical jurisdiction of the circuit court issuing the ex parte wiretap order, the interception was proper under the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. Davis v. State, No. 59, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0502-20, 55 pages.

MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration clause: The circuit court erred in granting defendants’ request for arbitration because the defendants were not signatories to the contract that contained the arbitration clause; nor was there a “significant relationship” between the plaintiff’s asserted claims and the contract containing the broadly-worded arbitration clause. Griggs v. Evans, No. 2596, September Term, 2009. RecordFax No. 12-0502-01, 32 pages.

Criminal Procedure, Laches as a bar to post-conviction relief: The doctrine of laches is available to bar certain post-conviction relief in cases where sentence was imposed before October 1, 1995; however, the record was insufficient to determine whether defendant’s petition was barred by laches in this case. Lopez v. State, No. 2916, September Term, 2008. RecordFax No. 12-0510-00, 37 pages.

Criminal Procedure, Waiver of Miranda rights: Where the State demonstrated that a Miranda warning was given to and understood by defendant, defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights. Warren v. State, No. 1996, September Term, 2009. RecordFax No. 12-0502-00, 50 pages.

U.S. 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Real Property, Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act: Lawsuits seeking equitable rescission of contracts for purchase of real property for violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, which permits suits at law or in equity for violations, must be filed within three years from the signing of the contract; therefore, plaintiffs’ equitable rescission claim, filed within three years of signing of purchase agreement, was not barred by statute of limitations. Nahigian v. Juno-Loudoun, Nos. 10-2198, 2231 and 2373. RecordFax No. 12-0501-60, 27 pages.