Background
Catherine Torney brought suit against Towson University in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Case No. C-03-CV-23-003581). After proceedings in that court, Torney sought review in the Supreme Court of Maryland by petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted as Pet. No. 343, September Term, 2025.
The parties submitted briefs and presented oral argument before the full Court on April 9, 2026. Following that argument, a supermajority of the Court concluded that certiorari had been improvidently granted and that the case did not warrant further review.
The Court’s Holding
By per curiam order issued April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. A dismissal on this basis means the Court determined, after full briefing and argument, that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for the question or questions it had anticipated reviewing. The practical effect is that the Circuit Court’s judgment stands undisturbed.
In an unusual cost allocation, the Court ordered that costs be paid by Respondent Towson University rather than by the petitioner whose writ was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court of Maryland dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted, restoring the Circuit Court for Baltimore County’s decision as the final judgment in the case.
- A supermajority of the Court concurred in the dismissal, indicating broad agreement that the case did not present a suitable vehicle for appellate resolution.
- Costs were assessed against Respondent Towson University — a notable departure from the typical rule that costs follow the party whose petition is dismissed.
Why It Matters
Dismissals of certiorari as improvidently granted are significant because they signal that the high court, even after initially finding a question worth reviewing, ultimately concluded the case was not the right vehicle to resolve it. Attorneys tracking Towson University litigation or Maryland public-university immunity and employment issues should note that the Circuit Court ruling remains precedentially limited but legally operative.
The cost award against the University is worth watching: assessing costs against the prevailing respondent is uncommon and may reflect the Court’s view of how the case was postured or litigated on certiorari, though the terse per curiam order provides no explicit rationale.