Case law

Moore v. City of Lewiston

596 A.2d 612 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 7, 1991

Supreme Court’s holding in DeShaney , as some courts 12 have found, nothing in the record before us would support a finding that the defendants affirmatively deprived Moore of a clearly established federal civil right. … Personal Immunity for employees; procedure 1. Immunity.

Jody L. Savage v. Maine Pretrial Services, Inc.

58 A.3d 1138 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 17, 2013

Section 2423-D, entitled “Authorized conduct by a visiting qualifying patient,” authorizes qualifying patients from another state in which the medical use of marijuana is permitted to engage in that conduct in Maine if … The express authorizations to use, prescribe, administer, or dispense marijuana pursuant to chapter 558-C thus create immunity from prosecution or other sanctions by state government. [¶18] The conduct of applying

Nadeau v. State

395 A.2d 107 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 1, 1978

Moreover, all legislative acts are clothed with an armor of constitutionality particularly resilient where such acts follow a long-settled and well-established practice of the Legislature. State v. … State, supra, the State waived sovereign immunity where a unique factual pattern was presented.

Black v. Solmitz

409 A.2d 634 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 18, 1979

Parent and Child (1) A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. (2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission that … The issue in Downs , as here, was not whether a new cause of action should be created but whether a blanket rule of immunity should be invoked to bar a claim for violated duty otherwise clearly maintainable under existing

Karen S. Klein v. University of Maine System

271 A.3d 777 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 15, 2022

purpose other than parking. [¶14] The parking lot outside of Holmes Hall and Fogler Library is not an appurtenance as that term is used in section 8104-A(2) because it meets none of the requirements necessary to qualify … After we defined appurtenance in Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 11, 850 A.2d 325, a majority of this Court later described that case as “apply[ing] the well-established definition of a fixture to determine whether an object was

State v. McEachern

431 A.2d 39 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 25, 1981

Trial evidence established that Frederick’s death was caused by a .22 semiautomatic rifle owned *41 by defendant. … Contrary to defendant’s claim on appeal, we find no error in that refusal since whatever was the significance of the Attorney General’s letter, it clearly was not a grant of immunity from prosecution and therefore the instruction

Eric Badler v. University of Maine System

2022 ME 40 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 28, 2022

General Public [¶17] The Court first states that the industrial kitchen mixer that injured Badler does not fall under the exception to immunity established in section 8104-A(1)(G), in part because the mixer “is unlikely … Because the record here demonstrates that the University has a buffer liability insurance policy, Badler should have the opportunity to recover damages for his injury, a result the Legislature clearly intended when it

State v. Troiano

421 A.2d 41 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 15, 1980

Having failed to establish any need for immunity, the defendant cannot now claim that the presiding Justice’s refusal to grant, or to compel the State to grant, reciprocal immunity deprived him of any testimony, much less … The presiding Justice clearly singled out the testimony of immunized witnesses for cautious evaluation. His failure to instruct in the exact language requested was not error.

State v. Cormier

838 A.2d 356 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 23, 2003

Ricci could testify that the injuries of the victim were inconsistent with consensual intercourse, therefore, was not clearly erroneous. 2. … The Immunized Witness Instruction [¶ 19] Cormier’s contention that the jury should have been instructed that Kelly, who testified for the State, had been granted immunity is without merit.

Inhabitants of Orono v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Society

105 Me. 214 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 2, 1909

Clearly the case at bar does not fall within this exception to the general rule. This is not a tax against the University of Maine, which is conceded to be a literary and scientific institution. … The defendant corporation is entitled neither to exemption as an educational or scientific institution, nor immunity as an agency or instrumentality of the State.

Brewer v. Roosevelt Motor Lodge

295 A.2d 647 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 17, 1972

A review of the evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff did not bring herself within the rule which would permit recovery. She failed to prove actionable negligence. … The legislative language is clearly to the contrary.

Chris Calnan v. Sam Hurley

2024 ME 30 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 25, 2024

Per the preamble in section 88, “the [EMS] Board, as established by [5 M.R.S. § 12004-A(15) (2024)], is responsible for the emergency medical services program.” … The statute unambiguously delegates to the EMS Board rulemaking authority regarding qualifications of EMS personnel, and its statutory purpose clearly vests the EMS Board with the responsibility of creating standards and

Onat v. Penobscot Bay Medical Center

574 A.2d 872 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 4, 1990

Accordingly, we do not reach the defendants’ cross-appeal on the question of qualified versus absolute immunity under 24 M.R.S.A. § 2511 (1985) or 32 M.R.S.A. § 3293 (1975). … This conditional privilege immunizes publication of Onat’s alleged shortcomings from legal claims absent abuse of this privilege through express or implied malice. See Saunders v.

Green v. State Tax Assessor

562 A.2d 1217 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 17, 1989

of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental .... … [and] it also effects a clearly sufficient State purpose, viz, ‘funding no more than that share of tax benefits that is attributable to income earned within, and therefore taxable by Maine.”

McKenney v. Labbe

588 A.2d 313 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 1, 1991

there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” … Because the defendants met their burden of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact in relation to their entitlement to immunity, see Saltonstall v.

Nancy J. McCandless v. John Ramsey

2019 ME 111 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 11, 2019

P. 12(a)(2) (“A qualified justice may participate in a decision even though not present at oral argument.”). 2 [¶2] Nancy J. … the summary judgment record to determine whether there is no genuine issue of material fact and the Ramseys have established the applicability of the immunity provision as a matter of law, see M.R.

State v. Warren

312 A.2d 535 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 3, 1973

Vickers’ refusal to answer the question which suggested that he was involved in that “activity”, on the ground that his answer “may tend to incriminate me” would clearly suggest to the jury that, if he answered truthfully … Kevin Vickers was called in the hearing of this cause last summer, was granted immunity, and refused to testify, as the record will so show.

State v. Vickers

309 A.2d 325 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 11, 1973

This power of government to compel persons to give testimonial evidence is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Kastigar v. United States, supra . … We are clearly not confronted with such a situation in the present case. We shall withhold judgment on such a problem until we are faced with it. The entry will be Appeal denied.

Trask v. Devlin

788 A.2d 179 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 17, 2002

The Federal Court determined that there was an adequate state law remedy, because the defendant wardens did not appear to be immune from suit pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111 (1997). … The trial court granted the wardens’ motion for summary judgment, determin *182 ing that, although Devlin and Morrison were not entitled to qualified immunity, Trask and Trafton had failed to create a genuine issue of material

Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River

922 A.2d 484 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 29, 2007

Page Keeton ed., 5th ed.1984) (“specific acts of negligence are often clearly ‘operational,’ so that the government is readily held liable for ... negligent maintenance of property”). [¶ 23] The essential question with respect … officials could be immune from suit for allowing the persistence of hazardous conditions on *491 property that they are required to maintain. 2 [¶24] Here, the undisputed facts establish that although the Town required Bell