Assignment - Marking a Case Brief

Objective: for students to properly mark the following brief extract and build a Table of Contents and a Table of Authorities in Microsoft Word.

Instructions: students will edit the enclosed appellate brief extract in Microsoft Word as follows:

1. Students should highlight all headers and assign each one an appropriate header style, and then at the top of the brief extract, students should insert a Table of Contents that will be populated by all header styled-sentences.
2. Students should mark each citation using References | Mark Citation by highlighting each citation, clicking "Mark Citation," and adding the cite into the appropriate category for the table of authorities.
3. Once all authorities are marked, students should then insert a Table of Authorities after the Table of Contents.
4. Students should then identify the total word count of the document and create a Certification of Word Count and Compliance with Rule 8-112, using the language in Md. Rule 8-504(a)(9).

The edited Word Document should be submitted through Brightspace by its due date.

Argument

I. The Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Appellant's Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus As Appellant Has A Clear Legal Right To The Issuance Of The Writ.

Under Maryland law, a person seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must plead a clear legal right, which, for want of an ordinary remedy under the law, requires that the writ be issued. Md. Rule 15-701; Philip Morris v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689, 712 (2000) (citing In Re Writ of Prohibition, 312 Md. 280, 307 (1988); Brack v. Bar Assoc. of Balt. City, Inc., 185 Md. 468, 474 (1945); Harvey v. Marshall, 158 Md. App. 355 (2004); Ijams v. Duvall, 85 Md. 252 (1897); Crim. Injuries Comp. Bd v. Gould, 273 Md. 486 (1975) (superseded on other grounds regarding appealability under the Maryland APA; See McGee v. Crim. Injuries Comp. Bd., 57 Md. App. 143 (1984; Seat Pleasant v. Jones, 364 Md. 663, 674 (2001); Magruder v. Swann, 25 Md. 173 (1866).

A. Appellant was elected in the November 2010 general election, and the results of that election were certified to the Appellee.

There is no dispute that Appellant was duly elected as a judge to the Baltimore City Orphans Court in the general election held on November 2, 2010. In addition, there is no dispute that the results of the election, including Appellant's election, were certified by the Board of Canvassers to the Appellee. There is also no dispute that the Maryland Constitution, article IV section 11, places in the hands of Appellee the ministerial duty of issuing commissions to those elected officials whose election results have been properly certified. There is no dispute that Appellee has refused to perform his ministerial duty.

Appellant has a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing Appellee to issue her commission. The trial court erred, as a matter of law, in concluding otherwise in granting Appellee's motion to dismiss.

1. The Circuit Court Erred in Finding that the Amendment to Article IV Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution Changed the Outcome of the 2010 General Election as to Appellant.

The trial court determined that an amendment to section 40 of Maryland's Constitution changed the outcome of the election of Appellant as probate judge. The passage of that amendment was certified by the Board of Canvassers and proclaimed effective by Appellee on December 1, 2010. The amendment added a new requirement that judges on the Baltimore City Orphans Court be attorneys admitted to practice in Maryland.

As a matter of law, the trial court erred in concluding that this amendment "changed the outcome of the election" of Appellant to the Baltimore City Orphans Court. Under Maryland law, the outcome of an election is determined by which candidate received the most votes for an office. Md. Election Law Code Ann. 11-503(a)(2) (2013). The constitutional amendment to article IV section 40 did not change the outcome of the election. Appellant's votes were neither nullified by it, nor were these votes changed or discarded. To the contrary, the Board of Canvassers certified that Appellant was elected to the public office of judge to the Baltimore City Orphans Court. As a matter of law, the circuit court erred in finding that any election result was changed by the passage of the amendment.

2. The Circuit Court Erred in Finding that the Constitutional Amendment Altered the Qualifications for Office as to Appellant During Her Term as Judge on the Baltimore City Orphans Court.

Appellee has urged upon the trial court that an elected official must be qualified not just at her election, but also throughout her entire term in office in order to remain in that office. This requirement is illustrated by those Maryland cases that discuss a public official who is required to be domiciled in a particular location by the constitutional provision that creates the position. For example, in Dorf v. Skolnik, 280 Md. 101 (1977), the court was confronted with whether the appellant, Jayme Dorf remained a member of Democratic State Central Committee for the 42^nd District, and therefore whether her vote to nominate James Dorf to the House of Delegates was valid. At issue was a pre-existing requirement, established by the DCC's internal constitution, that Miss Dorf be a resident of Baltimore city to be a member of the central committee. Id. at 109. The result of the trial court's finding that she was no longer domiciled in Baltimore City was that she was no longer a member of the committee at the time of the committee's nominating vote, and therefore her vote to nominate James Dorf was a nullity. Id. at 104.

The Court will note, however, the Dorf court in reaching this conclusion stated: "It follows that if the General Assembly may abolish an office of its creation, then there is no vested right in an office of other than constitutional stature which would prevent changing the qualifications of office during the term." Id. at 116 (emphasis added). Judges to the probate courts are not of legislative creation, but instead are provided for within our Maryland Constitution. These offices are of constitutional stature because they are created within the Maryland Constitution in each county, have permanent duties to hear probate matters, and are invested with the power to perform a public function for the benefit of the public. See Public Officers and Employees63C Am. Jur. 2d 1 (2013).