Published May 14, 2026
Legally reviewed by Joseph Cammarata, Partner
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On May 7, 2026, attorneys for Catherine Torney filed a motion asking the Supreme Court of Maryland to reconsider its order dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted and to reinstate the case. The motion, filed by Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. partner Joseph Cammarata, advances a substantial public-importance argument: that the legal question the Court agreed to hear in January — when, and under what circumstances, a landowner owes a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts involving firearms.
A link to the motion is here. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.
For background on the case and the underlying premises liability question, see our prior posts on the oral argument before the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Court’s subsequent dismissal of the writ as improvidently granted.
What a Motion for Reconsideration Asks the Court to Do
A motion for reconsideration, in the certiorari context, asks the court to reinstate review of a case the court has previously declined to decide. The motion is not a re-argument of the merits. It is a focused submission identifying reasons the prior order should be revisited — typically, that the legal question presented warrants the court’s attention notwithstanding the basis for the prior dismissal.
In Torney, the motion proceeds from a straightforward premise: the Supreme Court of Maryland recognized the importance of the legal question when it granted certiorari on January 6, 2026, accepted full briefing, and heard oral argument on April 9. The motion contends that nothing about the posture of the case has changed in the intervening weeks to diminish the significance of the question presented. If anything, the motion argues, the urgency of the issue to be decided has grown.
The Public-Importance Argument
Maryland appellate practice on dismissals as improvidently granted has long held that such orders may issue when a court determines, on closer review, that “there is truly no issue of public importance in the case or because there is such an issue, but it was not preserved below or the record in the case provides an inadequate basis for rendering useful guidance on that issue.” Sturdivant v. Md. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 436 Md. 584, 589 (2014).
The motion squarely engages each prong of that framework, arguing that Torney presents a genuine question of public importance, that the question was preserved throughout the proceedings below, and that the record provides an adequate basis for the Court to render guidance.
The substantive argument the motion raises — and the reason the case has drawn attention from the legal and public-policy communities in Maryland — is the foreseeability of gun violence in the modern era and what that foreseeability requires of landowners under Maryland premises liability law.
A Standard of Care That Has Not Yet Caught Up
Maryland courts have applied a “general field of danger” standard to foreseeability in premises liability cases. The standard does not require a landowner to have anticipated the precise mechanism of injury — only that the overall circumstances presented a range of harms a reasonable landowner should have anticipated.
The Appellate Court of Maryland has recognized, in the context of business owner liability for firearm violence, that the standard of care “is not static and will continue to evolve in light of common sense perceptions of the risks created by various conditions and circumstances.” Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., 257 Md. App. 273, 328, cert. denied, 483 Md. 579 (2023).
The motion contends that this evolution has not yet occurred. Despite the warning the Appellate Court issued in Mitchell, no Maryland appellate decision has articulated how a foreseeability analysis should account for the present prevalence of firearm violence in this country. The motion argues that Torney presents the Supreme Court of Maryland with the opportunity — and the responsibility — to do so.
The Data the Motion Relies On
The motion is unusually research-rich for a procedural filing of its kind. Among the public-record sources it cites:
- U.S. Surgeon General declaration (2024). The Surgeon General formally declared firearm violence a public health crisis in 2024, recognizing the physical, psychological, and societal harms repeated firearm incidents inflict on survivors, families, and communities.
- National mass shooting incidence (2026). As of early May 2026, there had been 135 mass shootings in the United States this year alone, defined as incidents in which four or more people were injured or killed not including the shooter.
- Maryland-specific data. Maryland has experienced at least 90 mass shootings since 2020. Firearm-related violence has become the leading cause of death for children in the state.
- Higher-education incidence. Between 2013 and 2025, there have been 418 documented incidents of gunfire on college campuses nationwide. Even excluding mass shootings, campus gun violence since 2023 has resulted in 114 deaths and 312 injuries.
- Economic burden. Fatal firearm injuries alone cost Maryland residents more than $9.1 billion annually, before accounting for the costs borne by employers, insurers, and publicly funded institutions.
These are not legal arguments. They are the public-policy backdrop against which the motion asks the Court to consider the legal question.
What the Motion Does Not Ask the Court to Do
The motion does not ask the Court to reach a particular result on the merits. It does not ask the Court to expand landowner liability beyond established Maryland authority. What the motion asks is that the Court answer the question it agreed in January to answer: under those established principles, where does the line of foreseeability fall in cases involving firearm violence on premises where a landowner has knowledge of escalating dangerous conditions?
That distinction matters. The motion is, in substance, a request that the highest court in the state provide guidance — guidance the Appellate Court itself has indicated is needed on an issue of public importance.
Why This Matters Beyond the Parties
Universities, commercial landowners, public venues, and government entities throughout Maryland routinely host invitees in settings where conditions can deteriorate. The motion identifies a series of unresolved questions facing each of them:
- Under what circumstances should gun violence be considered foreseeable for purposes of a landowner’s duty?
- When a landowner maintains its own police or private security force, what duty do those personnel owe to take affirmative action when they observe escalating conditions that pose a foreseeable risk of violence?
- Are invitees entitled to rely on the security measures and police presence promoted by the institutions inviting them onto the property?
- What baseline measures define a reasonable response when foreseeable harm becomes apparent before it materializes?
Without appellate guidance, Maryland trial courts will continue to apply traditional premises-liability principles — particularly foreseeability — to modern firearm violence on inconsistent terms. The motion contends that inconsistent standards in this area produce both unjust outcomes for injured plaintiffs and unpredictable risk allocation for the institutions that host the public.
Joseph Cammarata’s Track Record on These Questions
Joseph Cammarata has spent more than four decades representing injured individuals and their families in premises liability, brain injury, and complex personal injury matters. He is a dual board-certified civil trial attorney and was selected as a Class of 2026 Virginia Lawyers Hall of Fame Honoree by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. In 2025, he was named Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C.
Mr. Cammarata served as lead counsel in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) — the unanimous United States Supreme Court decision establishing that a sitting president may be sued in civil court while in office. He is a past Chair of the American Association for Justice’s Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, co-founded the Brain Injury Association of D.C., and authored the District of Columbia’s Athletic Concussion Protection Act of 2011.
His appellate work has placed him before both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Maryland — a combination of high-court advocacy held by relatively few practicing trial attorneys in the region.
Continuing Work
Coverage of Torney v. Towson University has appeared in The Daily Record, The Baltimore Banner, and WBAL-TV. Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. will continue to handle the premises liability cases that require sustained advocacy at every level of the state and federal courts.
The Court’s ruling on the motion for reconsideration is expected in the coming weeks. We will provide an update once the Court has ruled.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a motion for reconsideration?
A motion for reconsideration asks an appellate court to revisit an order it has already entered. In the certiorari context, the motion may ask the court to reinstate review of a case the court previously declined to decide.
Why was the original case dismissed?
On April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. The Court issued a brief per curiam order without an opinion or stated reasoning. A dismissal of that kind is not a ruling on the merits — it means the Court determined, on reflection, that it should not have agreed to hear the case in the first place.
What does the motion ask the Court to do now?
The motion asks the Court to reconsider its dismissal and to reinstate the writ of certiorari so that the Court can address the legal question it originally agreed to answer: the scope of a Maryland landowner’s duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts involving firearms.
Does the motion change the Appellate Court’s ruling against Ms. Torney?
No. The motion does not affect the lower court rulings. Those rulings remain in place unless and until the Supreme Court of Maryland grants the motion, reinstates review, and reaches a different conclusion on the merits.
Why does the legal question still matter?
The question presented reaches well beyond the facts of any single case. Universities, commercial property owners, and public-facing institutions across Maryland routinely host invitees in settings where conditions can deteriorate. Whether and when a landowner has a duty to act in those circumstances — particularly where the foreseeable harm involves firearms — is an area in which Maryland trial courts have asked for, and not yet received, appellate guidance.
When will the Court rule on the motion?
The Court has not announced a timetable. Motions for reconsideration are typically resolved within a matter of weeks, but the Court is not bound to a fixed schedule.
If you or a loved one has been injured due to dangerous conditions on someone else’s property, contact Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. at (202) 659-8600 for a free consultation. Our attorneys represent clients in premises liability cases across Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.
This post reflects the firm’s commentary on a matter of public record. It is not intended as legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers with specific legal questions should consult qualified counsel.
