Case law

Great Cove Boat Club v. Bureau of Public Lands

672 A.2d 91 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 21, 1996

Great Cove commenced an action to establish its easement rights over the submerged land. After completion of discovery, both parties moved for a summary judgment. … beginning, the bounds including and comprising all of the lands, submerged lands and waters contained therein, be and hereby is incorporated into a separate town, by the name of Eliot, with all the powers, privileges, and immunities

State v. Littlefield

161 Me. 415 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 11, 1965

The testimony of the officer clearly supports consent by respondents to the search of the automobile which was neither refuted nor denied. … When consent is claimed by the state to have rendered lawful an otherwise illegal search and seizure, the burden is on the state affirmatively to establish the consent. Villano v.

Camps Newfound/Owatonna Corp. v. Town of Harrison

705 A.2d 1109 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 26, 1998

Moreover, the Camp has not contested that it *1116 must establish its status as a benevolent and charitable institution before receiving an exemption for tax years 1992-97. … The Camp’s Privileges and Immunities Clause claim has not been preserved for this remand.

Bradstreet v. Clarke

394 A.2d 270 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 5, 1978

Second Defense The defendants are immune from this action. Third Defense This action is moot and should, therefore, be dismissed.” … The affidavit also established that the plaintiff students were reinstated on October 21, 1975, the result being that they missed only fourteen days of school. .In Goss v.

Chafee v. Fourth National Bank

71 Me. 514 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 20, 1880

Tbe language of the court clearly implies this. " Comity between states is not thus to be extended, to the prejudice of our own citizens.” … Bucknam, 11 Maine, 41, the court expressly stated that the doctrine which had been previously established in favor of resident creditors, could not be extended to non-residents.

Morin Building Products Co. v. Atlantic Design & Construction Co.

615 A.2d 239 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 20, 1992

A trial court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Leadbetter v. Morse, 510 A.2d 524, 526 (Me.1986). … A factual determination is clearly erroneous if not supported by competent evidence in the record. Hamm v. Hamm, 584 A.2d 59, 62 (Me.1990).

Campaign for Sensible Transportation v. Maine Turnpike Authority

658 A.2d 213 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 8, 1995

It is the State that “ultimately benefits from the operation of the Turnpike,” id. at 689, which was constructed, and is operated and maintained, by the MTA, an entity established by the State for that purpose. … Furthermore, the analysis of a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court, and the analysis of a state’s immunity from section 1983 claims in its own courts, are two distinct and independent questions.

State v. Mazerolle

614 A.2d 68 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 3, 1992

As a result, the court’s determination that the children qualified as witnesses was not clearly erroneous. Id. … However, M.R.Evid. 803(4) establishes that statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment are not excluded by the hearsay rule.

Bates Fabrics Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission

447 A.2d 1211 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 15, 1982

Status as a Qualifying Small Power Producer and to Establish Rate for Purchase of Electricity.” … The statute clearly embodies a Legislative determination that the PUC should not concern itself with the sales price of electricity sold by a qualifying facility to a public utility except to the extent specifically recognized

Commercial Leasing, Inc. v. Johnson

160 Me. 32 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 7, 1964

During the audit period from January 1, 1955, through November 30, 1960, it was duly qualified and authorized as a foreign corporation to do business in New Hampshire. … The testimony of these witnesses clearly indicates that these parts were ordered from New Hampshire by mail or telephone; and that they were actually delivered at Appellant’s place of business in New Hampshire by means of

State v. Boardman

64 Me. 523 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

Its reputation for lewdness and prostitution may be ever so clearly established, and yet if the evidence does not show that it was in truth used for those purposes, the first element in the offence is not proved ; but if … To establish the first proposition the court in that case admitted evidence of the reputation of the house, but distinctly say that such testimony would be clearly inadmissible to prove that the house was in fact a house

F. X. Bilodeau Realty, Inc. v. Lewiston Urban Renewal Authority

237 A.2d 398 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 22, 1968

The trial Court found him to be qualified and admitted his opinion testimony. … This determination was not clearly erroneous and is conclusive.

Bean v. Green

12 Me. 422 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1835

—The attempt on the part of common carriers, to limit and qualify the liability imposed upon them by the common law, although to be sustained when notice of it is clearly carried home to the knowledge of the party to be affected … The cases cited by the counsel for the defendants, establish the doctrine, that notice to the porter, messenger, or agent, by whom the parcel or package is sent by the owner, is notice to him.

Dana Desjardins v. Michael Reynolds

162 A.3d 228 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 18, 2017

A person engaged in petitioning activity is not immune from a meritorious defamation action. … It marks an extraordinary departure from well-established jurisprudence construing the operation of section 556. [¶ 27] If the Legislature had intended section 556 to establish such a wide-ranging immunity, the statute would

Farris ex rel. Bowker v. Libby

141 Me. 362 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 3, 1945

the statute should be read as a whole; ambiguities should be resolved; we should seek to neutralize the effects of obvious omissions; and we must assume that the legislature did not intend an absurd result or one which is clearly … It was there claimed that the assessors of the town were not legally qualified to hold office because they were not sworn as the statute provided.

Ingalls v. Brown

460 A.2d 1379 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 10, 1983

The language in the body of the affidavit submitted by the attorney clearly complies with the requirements of the rule. The affidavit states: “upon information and belief which I believe to be true ....” … In these circumstances, the inclusion in the jurat of qualifying language is of no consequence.

Spiller v. State

627 A.2d 513 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 23, 1993

Under time honored rules of construction, a statute will not be presumed to create contractual rights, binding future legislatures, unless the intent to do so is clearly stated. National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. … This well-established presumption is grounded in the elementary proposition that the principal function of a legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state.

In re Child of Taylor M.

2025 ME 7 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 2025

[A] court’s finding is clearly erroneous when there is no competent evidence in the record to support it.” … § 4055 (2024) must also be independently established by clear and convincing evidence.

Rowe v. Bennett

514 A.2d 802 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 27, 1986

At the hearing on the motion, the DHRS withdrew without prejudice the defense of charitable immunity. … Accordingly Bennett, as a qualified social worker who undertook treatment of the plaintiff, and DHRS, as Bennett’s employer and supervisor, were under a duty to provide care in accordance with the standards of practice applicable

Mahar v. StoneWood Transport

823 A.2d 540 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 1, 2003

Concluding that the stabbing was outside the scope of employment, the court observed that the employee was not authorized to leave his truck to stab a motorist, and doing so clearly demonstrated his motivation to serve his … While driving the truck too fast or following another vehicle too closely might not have been “actuated by a purpose to serve the master,” this limitation in subsection (2) must be qualified by the sections and comments of