Case law

State v. Taylor

343 A.2d 11 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 29, 1975

Subsequent medical examination by a qualified pathologist proved beyond doubt that Mr. … Appellant contends that it was admitted in evidence without a proper foundation having been established.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Insurance Commissioner

293 A.2d 529 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 13, 1972

We know of only one other instance where a statute has purported to establish a moratorium on payment of debit premiums in the event of a strike of debit agents. … Clearly implicit is the Legislature’s intention to restrict the benefits of the Act to policyholders who are currently served by Maine debit agents.

Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

405 A.2d 153 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 6, 1979

The Commission’s first objection to the discount is that it is provided to all qualified employees without regard to position, seniority, or other differentiating factors. … The citation by the Council of state and federal legislation establishing policies variously urging and mandating consideration of more clearly cost-based rate designs and structures does not suggest unlawful Commission action

Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith

2019 ME 130 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 8, 2019

In addition, because a judgment declaring ownership by adverse possession must clearly describe the boundary lines of the adversely possessed property so as to sufficiently establish those lines on the face of the earth … In addition, the judgment contains no legal descriptions of the boundaries it established. A.

Leslie S. Fissmer v. David D. Smith

2019 ME 130 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 8, 2019

In addition, because a judgment declaring ownership by adverse possession must clearly describe the boundary lines of the adversely possessed property so as to sufficiently establish those lines on the face of the earth … In addition, the judgment contains no legal descriptions of the boundaries it established. A.

State v. Old Tavern Farm, Inc.

133 Me. 468 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 22, 1935

It is better qualified than the court to determine the necessity, character, and degree of regulation of an industry, which new and perplexing conditions may require; and its conclusions should not be disturbed by the courts … unless they are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.”

Advanced Construction Corp. v. Pilecki

901 A.2d 189 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 13, 2006

Factual findings are clearly erroneous when there is no competent evidence in the record to support them. … The filing of a lawsuit qualifies as a regular use of process and cannot constitute abuse of process, even if the filing was influenced by an ulterior motive. Tanguay v. Asen, 1998 ME 277, ¶ 5 , 722 A.2d 49, 50 .

In re Child of Rebecca R.

2019 ME 165 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 12, 2019

However, both parents were also required to establish and maintain safe, stable housing suitable for family reunification. … Accordingly, the court’s factual finding that the father’s “unorthodox sleep pattern” was a “choice” and not a disability was not clearly erroneous.

Petition of Lewis Pierce

136 A.2d 510 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 17, 1957

Perry, `where the gift is distinctly limited to particular persons or establishments, and upon a change of circumstances the doctrine of cy pres does not apply.'" Doyle v. … Moreover, the record clearly indicates that there are still indigent seamen in existence, even of the class to which the testator belonged. Consequently, the trust has not entirely failed.

Hogan v. Veno

909 A.2d 638 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 16, 2006

The issues presented on appeal require an understanding of the history of this dispute beginning with (1) the initial judgment entered in September 2002, establishing the parties’ parental rights and responsibilities; as … This finding is clearly erroneous because the counselor testified that counseling for the child with and about her father would be appropriate for the child once she left the latency phase and entered the adolescent phase

Hovey v. Hobson

55 Me. 256 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

requests and the instructions given, it is plain that the demandant cannot be considered as aggrieved by the omission to instruct in form as requested, if the rule, which ought of right to govern the decision of the case, was clearly … Nothing is more unsafe than to rely upon such remarks taken from the connection and context by which their meaning is limited and qualified.

State v. Harding

508 A.2d 471 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 22, 1986

The facts in Carey are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. … The Court found that the M.T.P. officer’s actions amounted to an investigative detention, qualifying as a seizure under the fourth amendment. Id. at 1410 .

State of Maine v. Jacob R. Labbe Sr.

2024 ME 15 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 31, 2024

That is clearly not the case with 17-A M.R.S. § 210-A(1)(a)(1). 30 standard was sufficient. … light of the parties’ history, belie Labbe’s contention that he could not have known that the continued calls and texts would distress the victim. [¶56] Moreover, “[t]he First Amendment does not provide a wall of immunity

Maine Ass'n of Health Plans v. Superintendent of Insurance

923 A.2d 918 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 31, 2007

. § 6904(2)(B); and they are immune from liability in carrying out their supervisory functions, 24-A M.R.S. § 6905 (2006). [¶ 44] Accordingly, we will defer to the Board’s interpretation of the ambiguous statute if the interpretation … Because section 6913 and its legislative history do not clearly indicate a contrary intention, they do not compel a narrower interpretation. See Hannum, 2006 ME 51, ¶ 9 , 898 A.2d at *935 396 .

George Brackett v. Town of Rangeley

831 A.2d 422 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 25, 2003

DISCUSSION [¶ 14] The Bracketts contend first that, in light of the special circumstances of their case and consistent with the principles established in Keating v. … In the instant case, because there are extenuating circumstances, the Board clearly erred in denying the Bracketts the good cause exception.

Elizabeth Brown v. Delta Tau Delta

118 A.3d 789 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 18, 2015

These constitutional officers provide a direct link between the national fraternity and each local chapter. [¶26] Through its comprehensive articles and clearly defined power structure, DTD expressly reaches into … Our finding of a duty does not establish any liability on the part of DTD.

State of Maine v. David P. Hunt Jr.

293 A.3d 423 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 18, 2023

P. 12(a)(2) (“A qualified Justice may participate in a decision even though not present at oral argument.”). 2 and that the court made several evidentiary errors during the trial. … that the victim’s mother was “very angry” with him in 2012—after he moved out and before the victim’s initial disclosure—and so would establish a motive for the victim to lie.

State v. O'Clair

292 A.2d 186 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 14, 1972

We agree with the Justice below that Naoum’s testimony does not qualify as such qualitative and factual evidence as would probably change the result upon a retrial. As stated in State v. … The weight and credibility to be attached to the newly discovered evidence is for the Superior Court Justice and the issue on appeal is whether his decision was clearly wrong. State v.

Nicholas J. Capelety v. Kyla R. Estes

300 A.3d 817 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 15, 2023

cross-examine the guardian ad litem (GAL), (2) excluding certain of * Although Justice Douglas was not available at the first conference at which the Court considered the case on the briefs, he was a sitting Justice qualified … But clearly, at this time, [Capelety] is using the bulk of the time.” 4 [¶7] The trial court then heard testimony from Capelety, whose testimony ended just before the noon break.

State v. Blanchard

156 Me. 30 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 9, 1960

Nevertheless, a study of this opinion, and references thereto in subsequent opinions, as well as a qualifying statement in the opinion itself, would seem to indicate that the issue of constitutionality was not in fact passed … The court in this case clearly points out how the suspension of judgment in a criminal case in no manner conflicts with the pardoning power granted to the executive.