VIDEOS OF ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. Bell

 

In December 2014, the Court of Appeals heard argument regarding the legal mechanism to challenge Anne Arundel County’s comprehensive rezoning. G. Macy Nelson, counsel for the citizens, argued that his clients were aggrieved and had standing to challenge the comprehensive rezoning. Gregory J. Swain argued for Anne Arundel County. On April 21, 2015, The Court of Appeals held that only a citizen with taxpayer standing could challenge  the County’s comprehensive rezoning.

 

Litz v. Maryland Department of Environment

 

On May 7, 2013, the Court of Appeals heard argument about whether a citizen’s claim for chronic groundwater contamination was time-barred by the statute of limitations. On September 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals accepted the firm’s argument and ruled that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim for damages. Litz v. Maryland Dep't of Env't, 434 Md. 623, 76 A.3d 1076

Ray v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

In October 2012, the Court of Appeals heard argument about who has standing to challenge in court Baltimore City’s approval of a large commercial development project. G. Macy Nelson, counsel for the citizen-protestants, argued (time: 00:00 – 22:00: 43:35 – 50:18) for a liberal test for standing. Charles S. Hirsch, counsel for the developer, argued (time: 22:00 – 43:35) for a narrow test.  On January 22, 2013, the Court ruled that Mr. Nelson's clients lacked standing. Ray v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74, 59 A.3d 545 (2013).

Patuxent Riverkeeper v. Maryland Department of the Environment

 

In June 2011, the Court of Appeals heard argument regarding the proper interpretation of a new state statute’s requirements for standing to challenge a state environmental permit. G. Macy Nelson, counsel for the Patuxent Riverkeeper, argued (time: 00:00 – 19:50: 50:00 – 56:59) for a liberal test for standing.  Edward C. Gibbs, Jr., counsel for the developer, argued (time: 19:50 – 40:00) for a narrow test.  Adam D. Snyder, counsel for the Maryland Department of the Environment, explained (time: 40:00 – 50:00) the state’s view of the law. On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals accepted Mr. Nelson’s argument and ruled that the Patuxent Riverkeeper met the test for standing. Patuxent Riverkeeper v. Md. Dep’t of the Env’t, 422 Md. 294, 29 A.3d 584 (2011).

Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association

 

In October 2009, the Court of Appeals heard argument on whether the Prince George’s County Planning Board must consider the county’s General Plan’s requirement that no more than 1% of all residential development in the county through the year 2025 could occur in the county’s Rural Tier. G. Macy Nelson, counsel for the Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association, argued (time:  22:10 – 40:00) that the Planning must consider the 1% limit. M. Andree Green, counsel for the Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission, argued (time: 1:00 – 22:10; 40:00 – 50:59) that the Planning Board need not consider the limit. On December 23, 2009, the Court ruled in favor of Mr. Nelson’s client. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 412 Md. 73, 985 A.2d 1160 (2009).

Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc.

 

In May 2008, the Court of Appeals heard argument on whether the law of the case doctrine required the Court of Special Appeals to follow an earlier decision by the same court in the same case. G. Macy Nelson, counsel for citizen-protestants, argued at time 00:00 – 19:30 and 33:03 – 35:29.  Megan M. Bramble, counsel for the developer, argued at time 19:30 – 25:20. M. Andre Green, counsel for the Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission, argued at time: 25:20 – 33:05. The Court declined to accept Mr. Nelson’s argument. Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 949 A.2d 639 (2008).

People’s Counsel for Baltimore County and CALM  v. Loyola College in Maryland

 

In June 2008, the Court of Appeals heard argument on whether Maryland’s special exception (conditional use) test requires a comparison of the adverse effects at the proposed use at the proposed site with the adverse effects of the proposed use at other sites in the same zone. Peter Max Zimmerman, counsel for the People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, argued at time: 00:10 – 16:26 and 53:05 – 55:05; G. Macy Nelson argued at time: 16:26 – 28:50 and 55:05 – 1:02:24; and James A. Dunbar argued at time: 28:50 – 53:05). The Court declined to accept Mr. Nelson’s argument.