Is a Baltimore museum subject to PIA? MD high court to review that and 4 other cases.

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court last month agreed to take up five cases, one of which had not been heard by the Maryland Appellate Court.

The cases are Hyperheal Hyperbarics, Inc., et al. v. Eric Shapiro, Copinol Restaurant, Inc. v. 26 North Market Street, LLC, Jamal Antoine Williams v. State of Maryland, Trusteees of the Walters Art Gallery, et al. v. Walters Workers United and Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. Dallas Fenton.

The cases range in topic from examining whether the court had sufficient evidence to convict a Maryland man who stood next to a codefendant who spray-painted a gang symbol on a public wall, to determining whether a Baltimore museum is subject to the Maryland Public Information Act.

Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery

In Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery, the high court is set to decide whether the museum is a “unit or instrumentality of the State or of a political subdivision” under the Maryland Public Information Act.

The case centers on a set of requests to the museum in May 2022 by the museum’s union members for information related to their efforts to unionize the gallery’s employees. When the museum’s executive director denied the requests, the union members filed a complaint to compel the director to respond to the information requests.

In an unreported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court held the museum’s “relationship with” Baltimore City takes precedence over its “private character,” finding that the museum is subject to the Maryland Public Information Act.

Williams

In Williams, the high court will decide two issues: whether § 9-805(a) Criminal Law Article, which prohibits the promotion of a criminal organization, requires a specific intent to limit its scope to gang kingpins seeking to further an “underlying crim[e]” for the benefit of the organization; and whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Williams of violating the statute where he stood by a codefendant who spray-painted a gang symbol on a public wall.

In a reported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court found the Montgomery County Circuit Court had sufficient evidence to convict Williams for promoting a criminal organization when he stood near another man who spray-painted a gang symbol on a wall. The appeals court cited Williams’ affiliation with a gang and that he posed for a photo with the graffiti tag.

On appeal, Williams argued the statute by which the court convicted him requires a specific intent mens rea — namely, that the person also be convicted of participating in a gang, which requires committing a statute-specified “underlying crime” that Williams did not commit.

Hyperheal Hyperbarics

In Hyperheal Hyperbarics, the high court is set to decide whether an employee who committed wrongful acts solely in his capacity as an employee is entitled to indemnification when there is no nexus between the wrongful conduct and use of corporate powers bestowed on him as an officer or director.

The case centers on Eric Shapiro — the former director, majority shareholder, corporate officer and employee of Hyperheal Hyperbarics — and his claim that his employer wrongfully terminated him and that Hyperheal Hyperbarics owed him indemnification because he had successfully defended his employer’s suit against him in his capacity as a director or officer.

Among other findings, the Maryland Appellate Court in a reported opinion reversed the Baltimore County Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in Shapiro’s indemnification lawsuit. The appeals court found that it was erroneous to conclude that Hyperheal Hyperbarics’ allegations of improper conduct prevent Shapiro from being indemnified for the expenses he incurred in successfully defending a related fraud lawsuit.

Copinol Restaurant

In Copinol Restaurant, the high court will decide two issues: whether a landlord can unilaterally terminate a commercial lease and evict a tenant when the written lease between the parties has not expired, and whether a landlord can unilaterally terminate a commercial lease and evict a tenant based on an alleged “breach of lease” premised on the tenant briefly being late with rent payment when the tenant had paid all rent due prior to the time the landlord initiated the lawsuit.

26 North Market Street, LLC is the Copinol Restaurant’s landlord and claimed the restaurant held over its lease.

The Frederick County Circuit Court found that the “unambiguous language of the Lease authorizes both the termination of the Lease and a tenant holding over proceeding.”

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

In Department, the high court will decide whether the appellate court erred in holding that § 3-702(c) of the Correctional Services Article — which prohibits an inmate from earning diminution credits while serving a sentence for a third-degree sex offense involving a victim younger than 16 if the inmate was previously convicted of such an offense — applies only where the previous conviction occurred before commission of the offense for which the inmate is serving a sentence.

The case centers on Dallas Fenton, who was convicted in 2017 of committing several sex offenses. Fenton later sought judicial review in the Washington County Circuit Court and received partial relief, where the lower court ruled that “good conduct” credits should be awarded to Fenton at the start of his consecutive ten-year sentence, but he would be precluded from earning any further diminution credits while he served the ten-year term.

In a reported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court found that § 3-702(c) does not preclude Fenton from earning diminution credits with respect to his consecutive 10-year sentence.