Case law

Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

455 A.2d 34 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 14, 1983

That statement clearly exemplifies the narrowing of the ratemaking process to its economic ramifications and, in my view, excludes from the process's parameters the consideration of achievement of other independently established … The Attorney General's qualified affirmative response to that question is significant here for the rationale of the qualification.

Doe v. District Attorney

932 A.2d 552 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 25, 2007

most relevant” of the Mendoza-Martinez factors, id. at 97, 123 S.Ct. 1140 the Court concluded that the Act was not punitive and the challengers had not shown that the effects of the Act negated the Legislature’s intent “to establish … We conclude that Haskell does not declare for all time that SORNA is immune from an ex post facto challenge.

Knight v. Radomski

414 A.2d 1211 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 30, 1980

If this case did not involve a guardianship, we would necessarily review the Superior Court’s decision under a clearly-erroneous standard. … In no other way can the integrity of the legislative arrangements for guardianship established by 18 M.R.S.A. ch. 501, subch. Ill, be maintained.

State v. Burton

198 A.3d 195 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 11, 2018

[f]or any crime if the court can reasonably determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving-or the witness admitting-a dishonest act or false statement." … We have "clearly rejected the notion that evidence of conviction of the same or *203 a similar crime is per se inadmissible under M.R. Evid. 609." State v. Chubbuck , 406 A.2d 282 , 283 (Me. 1979).

Northeast Occupational Exchange, Inc. v. Bureau of Rehabilitation

473 A.2d 406 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 6, 1984

While the Court cautioned that, because of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, some executive actions are not reviewable by their very nature, Brown, 426 A.2d at 884 , the agency action in this case is clearly … The testimony of the Director of Field Operations indicated that the primary reason for the “deauthorization” was not the alleged failure to comply with the January 18,1980 letter but was the inability of NOE to establish

Richard Tominsky v. Town of Ogunquit et al.

2024 ME 30 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 23, 2023

Tominsky did not qualify for the Ordinance’s good cause exception because a mistaken belief of law is not an “extraordinary circumstance” that would result in a “flagrant miscarriage … But delay based on ignorance of the law cannot establish an extraordinary circumstance that would result in a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Cf. Alley v.

Moyer v. Board of Zoning Appeals

233 A.2d 311 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 26, 1967

Establishment and Regulations of Zoning Districts. B. … Thus, the ordinance clearly indicates that any high rise apartment house, which does not qualify as a garden apartment house is not permissible under the ordinance.

State v. Mahaney

437 A.2d 613 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 1, 1981

Moreover, Corporal Manduca had qualified as an expert in Maine courts approximately four hundred times. … Defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they caused the death of the deceased.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardation

481 A.2d 139 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 14, 1984

We review Superior Court factual determinations in section 104-A release hearings, as in other civil cases, only for findings that are “clearly erroneous.” See M.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … It will be rarely, if ever, possible to conclude that “the justice acted irrationally in failing to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner” qualified for release.

In re Children of Shirley T.

199 A.3d 221 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 3, 2019

No. 115-277). 8 court is established. Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. … Obviously [it] has, you know, intent clearly behind it, and you have to apply whatever the law is.”

Bell v. Town of Wells

557 A.2d 168 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 30, 1989

Although contemporary public needs for recreation are clearly much broader, the courts and the legislature cannot simply alter these long-established property rights to accommodate new recreational needs; constitutional prohibitions … Superior Court held that the State was trustee of public rights in Moody Beach, that this interest made the State an indispensable party, and that the quiet title actions were therefore barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity

State of Maine v. Hillary Hemminger

276 A.3d 33 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 14, 2022

In Carey, when the charges against the defendant were described during jury selection, one prospective juror stated, clearly enough that other jurors could have heard, means that judges and jurors are not immune. . . … .  15 enhancement resulting from her trial testimony, a district court must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish

Brunswick & Topsham Water District v. Maine Water Co.

99 Me. 371 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 14, 1904

The right may be limited or qualified by express enactment. One franchise is limited in the nature of things, and that is the franchise to charge tolls or rates for water furnished. … , it will do so only when it is clearly made to appear that justice requires its intervention.

Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway

57 Me. 202 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1869

This liability of the master is very clearly expressed in a recent-case' in Massachusetts. … The reason of the rule clearly appears by the cases in which it has been declared and applied.”

Valente v. Board of Environmental Protection

461 A.2d 716 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 14, 1983

not effect a change thereof beyond that clearly indicated either by express terms or by necessary implication." … It is within this statutory framework that we must analyze the meaning of section 484, which establishes the criteria the Board must apply in deciding whether to grant or deny a development permit.

Ann Cannon v. Town of Mount Desert

2025 ME 86 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 28, 2025

Open Space requirement for Workforce Housing: When calculating open space requirement for qualified workforce housing development, the density bonus units shall be excluded. (A. 97.) … That said, section 5.16.2(3) clearly imposes some open space requirement for Workforce Housing.

Bartlett v. McIntire

108 Me. 161 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 23, 1911

It was not intended to limit or defeat the sacred right of franchise by establishing a method so intricate or complicated as to circumvent the intention of the honest voter. … This is an important question, for upon its answer depends, in many cases, the disfranchisement of a qualified and honest voter.

In re 1983 Legislative Apportionment of House, Senate, and Congressional Districts

469 A.2d 819 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 9, 1983

Furthermore, we already have stated that we find nothing clearly unreasonable in the judgmental decisions made by the Legislature to accommodate the state constitutional policy of preserving municipal lines with the equal … IV, pt. 2, § 2, provides: The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty-one members, to be elected by the qualified electors, and hold their office two years from the day next preceding the first Wednesday

State v. Boutot

325 A.2d 34 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 5, 1974

The Court said: "In order to qualify as a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure’ one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims … The United States Supreme Court has clearly not felt that the prophylactic purposes of the exclusionary rule require the extension of its benefits to those defendants who were not included in Jones as having standing to attack

State of Maine v. Germaine Page

2023 ME 73 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 30, 2023

Here, in the context of Page’s argument, Black, African American, Indigenous, Latino, and Asian people clearly are distinctive groups, and the first element in the Duren test has been met. [¶21] In considering the … Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 656, 658 (2d Cir. 1997) (explaining that census data can quickly become outdated and may “not accurately reflect the pool of qualified jurors”); cf. Stephen E. Reil, Comment, Who Gets Counted?