Case law

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

Camp Emoh Associates v. Inhabitants of Lyman

132 Me. 67 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 4, 1933

The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff is a “benevolent and charitable institution incorporated by the state.” … The burden was on the plaintiff to establish its right to exemption. Bangor v. Masonic Lodge, 73 Me., 428.

State v. Papalos

150 Me. 370 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 11, 1955

Zahn ... an executive officer to wit: the duly appointed and qualified Chairman of the State Liquor Commission of the State of Maine, and the said Bernard T. … Sahagian, in testifying at the trial, believed he had gained immunity.

State v. Small

411 A.2d 682 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 27, 1980

Garland ultimately admitted his involvement to fire inspectors and was given immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony against defendant. In defense, Small blamed the fire entirely on Garland. … Questioning by the court established that “smudge sale” is “a common slang term” that is “used around the community in which [Strickland] operate[s].”

Bowen v. Department of Human Services

606 A.2d 1051 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 17, 1992

In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge pursuant to Title VII 1 Bowen must show that (1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) her employer thereafter subjected her to adverse employment action … Bowen argues that this conduct clearly exceeded the scope of Bartley’s discretionary duties and therefore section 8111 does not protect her.

McCullough v. Visiting Nurse Service of Southern Maine, Inc.

691 A.2d 1201 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 31, 1997

See also Restatement (Second) of TORTS § 581A cmt. f (1977) (It is not necessary to establish the literal truth of the precise statement made. … law....” [¶ 14] The foregoing statutory language provides VNS with immunity from civil liability for fulfilling its obligation to report McCullough’s termination to the board.

Potter v. Frank

106 Me. 165 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1909

The evidence tending to prove a mutual mistake does not meet the requirements of that high degree of proof necessary to establish the facts in this class of cases. … They undoubtedly thought they were signing a document that would qualify the defendant, William H.

Guardianship of Jewel M.

989 A.2d 726 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 9, 2010

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) no competent evidence supporting the finding exists in the record; (2) the fact-finder clearly misapprehends the meaning of the evidence; or (3) the force and effect of the … This evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the father had not found a qualified therapist for Jewel in his area at the time of the hearing.

Carleton v. Fletcher

109 Me. 576 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 20, 1912

It is 'claimed in behalf of the plaintiff that these facts and circumstances are deafly established by the evidence. … It was a question which they were peculiarly qualified to determine, and their decision does not appear to be so manifestly wrong as to require the interposition of the Law Court to set it aside.

Foss v. Maine Turnpike Authority

309 A.2d 339 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 10, 1973

frequently made to distinguish between nuisance and negligence, for example, is based upon an entirely mistaken emphasis upon what the defendant has done rather than the result which has followed, and forgets completely the well established … We believe that the answer to this question is clearly in the negative. In Michaud v.

State v. Beathem

482 A.2d 860 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 17, 1984

Factual findings of trial courts may be overturned on review only if they are clearly erroneous. E.g., State v. Adams, 457 A.2d 416, 417 (1983). … The prosecutor directed the witness to answer and in the presence of the jury stated “if he needs immunity I’ll grant him immunity right now.”

Harvey F. Gamage, Shipbuilder, Inc. v. Halperin

359 A.2d 72 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 14, 1976

within the contemplation of the Legislature when L.D. 1273 was enacted that such part of the tax imposed by Section 3 as was added to selling prices under the schedule established by Section 5 was to be paid to retailers … The Constitution of the United States neither mentions nor alludes to immunity of the United States government.

Forrest Associates v. Passamaquoddy Tribe

760 A.2d 1041 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 3, 2000

Accordingly, Forrest is not entitled to a recovery in quantum meruit because it cannot establish a reasonable expectation of payment. [¶ 13] In addition, Maine law provides that the Tribe enjoys the same privileges and immunities … Competent evidence exists in the record to support these factual determinations, and thus they are not clearly erroneous.

Wellman v. Department of Human Services

574 A.2d 879 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 7, 1990

We decline to interpret the inclusion of presumption language in section 272 as precluding a corresponding presumption clearly contemplated in the overall statutory scheme, that AFDC payments made to an eligible father or … In the absence of the State’s waiver of its sovereign immunity, 12 that immunity likewise bars retroactive recovery of AFDC support reimbursements by the plaintiff class in this case.

Thiboutot v. State

405 A.2d 230 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 31, 1979

In view of the qualified nature of welfare rights, cases denying the defense of state immunity where plaintiff’s property has been taken by the state without just compensation cannot be relied on as precedents controlling … Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 239-40 , 90 S.Ct. 400 , 24 L.Ed.2d 386 (1969) where the Court used language which seemed from context to imply that section 1988 (before its amendment in 1976) established a rule of

Robinson v. Washington County

529 A.2d 1357 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 21, 1987

Although the alleged conduct does not appear to fall within any of the exceptions to immunity under section 8104, 3 governmental immunity is an affirm *1361 ative defense, to be pleaded under M.R. Civ. … We therefore conclude that the plaintiff has failed to establish a sufficient claim under section 1983.

Hawkes v. Commercial Union Insurance

764 A.2d 258 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 16, 2001

Likewise, the other two documents clearly state that Commercial Union is being released only for claims arising out of Hawkes’ employment with Giberson Buick-Pontiac and for claims stemming from the 1984 injury. … The Workers’ Compensation Board is required to establish an abuse investigation unit which, when directed by the Board, investigates complaints of illegal or improper conduct of insurers relating to workers' compensation

Wyman v. Secretary of State

625 A.2d 307 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 21, 1993

Because this action was brought by Wyman against the Secretary in his official capacity, not against the Secretary personally, issues of qualified immunity are not implicated in this case. Hafer v. … The only immunities available to the defendant in an official capacity action are those that the governmental entity possesses. Id. 8 .

Maine State Raceways v. La Fleur

147 Me. 367 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 1, 1952

It has been asserted in this court on many occasions that that amendment does not prevent the proper exercise of the police power of the state, notwithstanding its prohibition of the abridgement of “the privileges or immunities … The evidence discloses clearly that the track operated by Scarborough Downs was conducted at a loss at all times, so far as the horse racing exhibited there was concerned.

State v. Goldman

281 A.2d 8 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 26, 1971

Boudreau’s attorney did not know whether immunity would be claimed by the witness until he actually did so. … qualified to render a decision.