Articles Posted in General

An  unreported opinion last week by the Maryland Appellate Court in the case of Carpenter v. Jenkins holds significant implications for the understanding and application of adverse possession law within the state.

This case meticulously explores the stringent criteria that claimants must satisfy to successfully assert ownership over disputed land through adverse possession, a legal principle that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions over time. The appellate court’s detailed examination of the evidence against the backdrop of established legal standards provides valuable insights into the practical challenges of proving adverse possession.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Carpenters did not meet the necessary legal thresholds, this opinion underscores the importance of demonstrating all elements of adverse possession unequivocally. This decision not only clarifies the application of adverse possession laws in Maryland but also serves as a cautionary tale for both legal practitioners and property owners about the complexity and difficulty of establishing claims based on these grounds.

In the case of “Greenmark Properties, LLC v. Parts, Inc.,” heard by the Maryland Appellate Court, the key issue revolved around the validity of two real estate sale contracts for a property owned by Parts, Inc. (“Parts”). The case is unreported, but it is interesting. So I am summarizing it here.

Facts of Greenmark Properties v. Parts

The case concerns two conflicting contracts for Pilot’s Cove Farm, a 129-acre farm in Charles County, Maryland, owned by Parts, Inc. Greenmark entered into a sale agreement with Parts on July 30, 2019, for $850,000, additional financial benefits, and a five-year lease for Brian Puckett, the sole and controlling shareholder of Parts.

Navigating the complexities of vehicle window tinting laws in Maryland is necessary if you do not want to keep getting pulled over by police.  These regulations try to strike a delicate balance between personal aesthetic preferences, privacy needs, and vital safety considerations. But most people in Maryland who are interested in tinting their windows find our laws excessive.

But everyone should acknowledge that overly dark window tinting can lead to decreased visibility, particularly in conditions of low light or nighttime, that can cause car accidents.  Our lawyers have seen this firsthand. This reduced clarity of vision can create safety risks for the driver as well as for pedestrians. To prevent such hazards, regulations are in place to ensure that a certain level of visibility is maintained for safe driving.

Maryland Vehicle Tint Darkness Regulations

Window Allowed Tint Darkness
Windshield Non-reflective 35% VLT tint on AS-1 line or top 5 inches
Front Side windows Must allow more than 35% of light in
Back Side windows Must allow more than 35% of light in
Rear Window Must allow more than 35% of light in

The Maryland Tint Law

Here is the verbatim text of the statute §22–406:

(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) “Aftermarket safety glass replacement” means motor vehicle safety glass replacement services that occur after the original installation by a vehicle manufacturer. (3) “Safety glass” means: (i) Any glass product that is so made or treated as substantially to prevent the glass from shattering and flying when struck or broken; or (ii) Any similar or other product that the Administration approves.

(b) A person may not drive on any highway in this State any motor vehicle manufactured or assembled after June 1, 1937, and registered in this State, unless the vehicle is equipped with safety glass wherever glass is used in the motor vehicle in doors, windows, windshields, and wings.

(c) A person may not sell any motor vehicle manufactured or assembled after June 1, 1937, registered or intended to be registered in this State and driven or intended to be driven on any highway in this State, unless the vehicle is equipped with safety glass wherever glass is used in the motor vehicle in doors, windows, windshields, and wings. Each sale in violation of this provision is a separate offense.

(d) The owner of any motor vehicle may not have broken glass in the windshield of the vehicle replaced with any glass other than safety glass.

(e) The owner of any motor vehicle may not have safety glass, broken or otherwise, in doors, windows, or wings of the motor vehicle replaced with any glass other than safety glass.

(f) A person may not install in the doors, windows, windshields, and wings of any motor vehicle any glass other than glass required by subsections (d) and (e) of this section.

(g) (1) (i) The Administration shall compile, maintain, and publish a list, by name, of the types of glass approved by it as conforming to the specifications and requirements of safety glass as set forth in this section.

(ii) The Administration shall adopt regulations establishing standards and requirements for aftermarket safety glass replacement that:

  1. Require that the products and services used meet or exceed original equipment manufacturer specifications;
  2. Require the use of motor vehicle safety glass that meets American National Standards Institute Z26.1 in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 and any other applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard adopted by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration; and
  3. Meet or exceed the standards and requirements of the American National Standards Institute/Auto Glass Safety Council/Automotive Glass Replacement Safety Standard.

(2) The Administration may not register any motor vehicle that is subject to the provisions of this section unless it is equipped with an approved type of safety glass and shall suspend the registration of any motor vehicle subject to this section that the Administration finds is not so equipped until the vehicle is made to conform to the requirements of this section.

(h) In case of any violation of any provision of this section by any common carrier or person operating under a permit issued by the Public Service Commission of Maryland, the permit shall either be revoked or, in the discretion of the Commission, suspended until the provision is complied with to the satisfaction of the Commission.

(i) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection, a person may not operate a vehicle registered under § 13–912, § 13–913, § 13–917, or § 13–937 of this article on a highway in this State if: (i) In the case of a vehicle registered under § 13–912 of this article, there is affixed to any window of the vehicle any tinting materials added to the window after manufacture of the vehicle that do not allow a light transmittance through the window of at least 35%; and (ii) In the case of a vehicle registered under § 13–913, § 13–917, or § 13–937 of this article, there is affixed to any window to the immediate right or left of the driver any window tinting materials added after manufacture of the vehicle that do not allow a light transmittance through the window of at least 35%.

(2) If a police officer observes that a vehicle is being operated in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection, the officer may stop the driver of the vehicle and, in addition to a citation charging the driver with the offense, issue to the driver a safety equipment repair order in accordance with the provisions of § 23–105 of this article.

(3) A person may not install on a window of a vehicle any window tinting material that does not comply with the light transmittance requirements specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(4) (i) A person who must be protected from the sun for medical reasons is exempt from the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection if the owner has, in the vehicle at the time the vehicle is stopped by a police officer, a written certification in the manner and format required by the Automotive Safety Enforcement Division of the Department of State Police that details the owner’s medical need for tinted windows with a light transmittance of less than the allowed 35%, from a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State.

(ii) A written certification under this paragraph shall be valid for a period of time that the licensed physician determines the owner needs the enhanced tinted windows, not to exceed 2 years.

(iii) This subsection does not apply to tinting materials that:

  1. Are affixed in such a manner so as to be easily removed; and
  2. Are being used to protect a child less than 10 years of age from the sun.

(iv) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to:

  1. Allow any tinting materials to be added to the windshield of a vehicle below the AS1 line or below 5 inches from the top of the windshield;
  2. Prohibit a person from operating the vehicle while the person for whom the written certification is required is not present in the vehicle, provided that the written certification is in the vehicle; or
  3. Alter or restrict the authority of the Administrator to adopt regulations regarding vehicle windows, except with respect to the light transmittance requirements specified in this section.

Let’s Break Down the Maryland Tint Statute

This law explains the rules about the type of glass and window tinting allowed in cars in Maryland.

Types of Glass

  • “Aftermarket safety glass replacement” is when you replace your car’s glass after the manufacturer initially installed it.
  • “Safety glass” is a special kind of glass that doesn’t break into sharp pieces when it gets hit or broken. It can also be any other type of glass that the state transportation authority approves.

Rules for Driving in Maryland

  • Any car made after June 1, 1937, and driven in Maryland must have safety glass in all the windows, doors, windshields, and wings.
  • You can’t sell a car made after this date in Maryland unless it has safety glass in these places.
  • If your car’s windshield breaks, you have to replace it with safety glass.
  • All glass in the doors, windows, or wings must also be safety glass.

Installing Glass

  • You can’t put any glass in the doors, windows, windshields, or wings of a car that isn’t safety glass.
  • The state transportation authority will keep a list of approved glass types and will set standards for replacing glass to make sure it’s safe.

Registering Vehicles

  • A car must have approved safety glass to be registered in Maryland.
  • If it doesn’t, its registration will be suspended until it gets the right kind of glass.

Penalties for Common Carriers

  • If a public transport vehicle breaks these rules, they might lose their permit until they fix the problem.

Window Tinting Rules

  • You can’t drive certain types of registered vehicles if the windows have tinting that lets in less than 35% light.
  • If a police officer sees a car with too dark a tint, they can stop the driver, give them a ticket, and order them to fix the tint.
  • You can’t install window tinting that doesn’t meet the 35% light rule.
  • There’s an exception for people who need protection from the sun for medical reasons. They can have darker tints if they have a note from a doctor and keep it in their car.
  • This exception doesn’t allow for super dark tints on the windshield and doesn’t change other car window regulations.

Safety and Visibility Considerations

The primary rationale behind these tinting regulations centers on safety and visibility. Excessive tinting can significantly impair a driver’s ability to see, particularly in low-light conditions or at night.

This reduced visibility poses a risk not only to the driver but also to pedestrians and other vehicles. Furthermore, for law enforcement, the ability to see inside a vehicle during a traffic stop is crucial for officer safety. Clear visibility through windows is essential in preventing accidents and ensuring safe interactions with law enforcement.

Reflectiveness and Color Regulations

Maryland’s laws also address the reflectiveness and color of window tints. Tints that are too reflective or mirror-like can create hazards for other drivers due to glare. As such, the state restricts the use of metallic or mirrored tints. Moreover, tints in colors such as red, amber, and yellow are prohibited on front windshields and front side windows. These color restrictions are in place to avoid confusion with emergency vehicles and to maintain clarity of vision through the windows.

Exemptions for Medical Conditions

Recognizing that certain medical conditions necessitate protection from sunlight, Maryland law provides exemptions for such cases. Individuals with specific medical needs can apply for an exemption, which allows for darker tints than normally permitted. To qualify, one must present documentation from a licensed physician. Conditions that typically qualify for these exemptions include certain skin diseases, light sensitivity, and other health issues aggravated by exposure to sunlight.

Legal Consequences of Non-Compliance

Non-compliance with Maryland’s window tinting laws can lead to legal consequences. Violators may face fines and be required to remove non-compliant tinting. Additionally, illegal tints can result in a vehicle failing its inspection, complicating the registration and renewal process. It’s crucial for vehicle owners to ensure their tinting adheres to state laws to avoid these potential issues.

Tips for Choosing the Right Tint

When selecting a window tint, it’s important to choose one that complies with Maryland’s laws. Vehicle owners are advised to consult professional tinting services that are familiar with state regulations. Additionally, it’s wise to verify the most current laws with the local Department of Motor Vehicles or law enforcement agencies, as regulations can change.


Understanding and adhering to Maryland’s window tinting laws is imperative for legal compliance and road safety. Like them or not, these regulations are designed to ensure that drivers have sufficient visibility while also allowing for some degree of personalization and protection from the sun. By following these guidelines, drivers can enjoy the benefits of window tinting without compromising safety or facing legal repercussions.

Maryland’s Supreme Court will hear arguments on Friday regarding the state’s digital advertising tax, which targets companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook. The tax applies to gross revenue from digital ads earned by companies with over $100 million in annual revenue.

The Act imposes a tax on companies with over $100 million in global annual gross revenue from digital ads earned in Maryland, ranging from 2.5% to 10%. Plaintiffs challenged the Act, alleging violations of the Commerce Clause, First Amendment, and preemption by the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Alison L. Asti’s ruled that the online tax contravenes the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act’s ban on discriminatory taxes on online services, given that Maryland does not impose a similar tax on non-digital advertising. The Circuit Court, in its ruling, stated that digital advertising is akin to traditional advertising and, as a result, Maryland’s DAT is discriminatory under the ITFA.  The Comptroller has appealed, arguing that this ruling ignores substantial and fundamental distinctions between the operations of digital advertising platforms and traditional advertising methods.

A bill in the Maryland General Assembly, sponsored by state Del. Joe Vogel, D-Montgomery, aims to require hospitals to conduct a fentanyl test on patients suspected of a drug overdose, in response to the alarming number of overdose deaths caused by fentanyl in the state.

According to data from the Maryland Opioid Operational Command Center, fentanyl accounted for over twice as many overdose deaths as the substance with the second-highest number of deaths. Hospitals are the first line of defense, and testing for fentanyl would help inform opioid prevention strategies.

Fentanyl Problem in Maryland

Facebook yet again finds itself involved in another lawsuit. The social-networking service is being sued by people claiming that showing ads that network friends can “like,” violates a California law regarding commercial endorsements. Goodness, being big sure does generate a lot of lawsuits. Facebook’s bid to dismiss the lawsuit was rejected this week, and it was ruled that the plaintiffs may pursue claims that the company’s sponsored ads violate state law and are fraudulent.

The court found that “plaintiffs have articulated a coherent theory of how they were economically injured by the misappropriation of their names, photographs, and likeness.” According to the plaintiffs, a sponsored story is a paid ad consisting of another friend’s name and profile picture and claiming the person likes the advertiser, and they further feel that it’s unauthorized use of their names and likenesses and they feel they deserve compensation. Raise your hand if you think this sounds ridiculous.

Facebook’s argument is that this case should be dismissed by the court before it is dismissed by a jury because Facebook is immune under the law’s “newsworthiness” exemption, which doesn’t require consent, and that the plaintiffs are public figures to their friends, and expressions of consumer opinion are generally newsworthy. What are they complaining about? As Facebook’s Chief Executive Officer puts it, “Nothing influences people more than a recommendation of a friend” and a “trusted referral is the Holy Grail of advertising.” The “liked” ads are doing nothing but benefit the plaintiffs, but yet they are asking for more money for the unauthorized use of their names. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have an undeserved reputation for a willingness to sue their parents for a buck. This article lends credence to it.

I was musing on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog yesterday that I thought it was a better practice for Maryland to follow what appears to the Connecticut model keeping out names of parties if the subject matter is sensitive. Coincidentally, the 2nd Circuit ruled this week that a woman seeking to bring sexual assault lawsuit pro se under a pseudonym may continue to bring her case anonymously.

This is obviously a more intricate issue that what names should be used in appellate court opinions. And I’m not one of these big privacy people. I’m perfectly fine with the FBI listening to any conversation I have, for example. I don’t care. But it just seems so easy to take people’s actual names out of appellate court opinions. Sure, the names are a part of the public record. But if you are a doctor who has a great career and makes one malpractice mistake before he retires, should he have to spend his retirement seeing the case’s facts laid out for all to see anytime someone Googles his name?

My blog on Friday on large law firms and their lawyers poked a bit of fun at my brother-in-law in Arizona, who is a partner in a very large firm. I forwarded him the post and got no response. Today, he responded with a comment to my blog which I have converted into a post. Apparently, he had an opinion on the subject. He also proved the point of my original post by using the word “untermenchen” at one point.

His Response

This is his response: