Case law

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. State Tax Assessor

52 A.3d 941 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 28, 2012

Ouellette, Labonte, Roberge & Allen, P.A., 637 F.3d 32 , 36-37 & n. 7 (1st Cir.2011), establishing selective prospectivity in Maine. … With this reading, we clearly held that only a retailer who had charged off the account as worthless could qualify for the credit. [¶ 12] Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether Linnehan Leasing applies retroactively

City of Bath v. Reed

78 Me. 276 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 11, 1886

(Ky.) 433, it was held that where by statute an officer holds for a given terra, and until his successor is elected and qualified, he continues in office until his successor is duly elected and qualified, though from failure … assessors intended to tax, it would be manifestly unjust that he should escape taxation for so trivial a cause as an error, mistake or omission in his designation, when his identity with the party designed to be taxed can be established

Gautschi v. Maisel

565 A.2d 1009 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 8, 1989

This conditional privilege entitled Maisel to immunity for slander unless he abused the privilege — for example by making the statement outside normal channels or with malicious intent. See Saunders v. … Maisel’s motion for summary judgment clearly established that he was entitled to the conditional privilege unless he abused it.

Inhabitants of Whiting v. Inhabitants of Lubec

121 Me. 121 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 9, 1922

Analysis makes evident the purpose of the statute to qualify the otherwise prevailing rule. Laws of 1911, Chapter 120. Taxation is an essential attribute of sovereignty. … This immunity does not result from a want of power in the legislature. Dillon Mun. Corp., Section 1396.

Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Marianne A. Gregor

122 A.3d 947 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 11, 2015

The foundation must be laid by a witness who is a “custodian or another qualified witness.” M.R. Evid. 803(6); Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, ¶ 25, 96 A.3d 700. … The loan analyst that Homeward Residential/Ocwen offered was simply not qualified to lay the foundation necessary to admit the printout.

Estate of Anderson

468 A.2d 612 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 9, 1983

Anderson could qualify as prime beneficiary under the terms of the will. … by the first clause [of the will] ... and shall qualify as the sole legatee thereunder.

State of Maine v. Ralph A. Tripp Jr.

2024 ME 12 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 2024

The trial court denied Tripp’s motion to dismiss on November 1, 2021, and reasoned, The exemption from criminal liability statute clearly identifies the four crimes for which a defendant may not be prosecuted … Because Tripp did not invoke his right to remain silent, he has not established any error, let alone obvious error “so clear under existing law that the court and the prosecutor were required to address the matter even

Prentiss v. Davis

83 Me. 364 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 9, 1891

The proof of certain facts, in a chain of events, leads directly and forcibly to the conclusion of the existence of the facts, which naturally and properly and usually precede those which are known and established.” … following formula has been adopted : "The inhabitants of the town of (Brewer), shall continue to be a body politic and corporate, by the name of the city of (Brewer), and as such, shall have, exercise and enjoy all the rights, immunities

Farnsworth Co. v. Rand

65 Me. 19 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 24, 1876

His testimony was not qualified, hesitating, and uncertain, like that offered in Chapman v. Limerick, 56 Maine, 390. … established.

Colby v. York County Commissioners

442 A.2d 544 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 12, 1982

As to count II defendant moved to dismiss on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity and failure to state a claim. … Initially we noted that defendants did not move to dismiss this count as untimely but, rather, sought dismissal on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity and failure to state a claim.

Bussey v. Gilmore

3 Me. 191 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1824

Their competency to make the commutation was established and confirmed; but the competency of those, with whom such contracts might be made, was left to depend upon the general rules of law, unaffected by the provisions of … The privilege purchased by the contract, was valuable to many of the citizens, in their individual capacity ; but the town had no corporate interest to be promoted by the immunity.

State v. Young

303 A.2d 113 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 30, 1973

That case is clearly distinguishable on its facts and the rule there announced has no application to the issue here raised. Boston v. … Appellant’s objection was stated as follows: “The grounds are they have not established their continuity.

Roberts v. American Chain & Cable Co.

259 A.2d 43 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 21, 1969

Notwithstanding such clearly expressed judicial doctrine, our Legislature substantially revised the original workmen’s compensation act of 1915 at its 1919 and 1921 sessions, and both revisions re-enacted the employer’s rights … We rule that the Legislature, in imposing absolute liability on an assenting employer without reference to fault in return for the employee’s speedy recovery of fixed but limited benefits for any industrial injury, has established

State v. Bickart

963 A.2d 183 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 20, 2009

We held that the “proponent of expert testimony must establish that (1) the testimony is relevant pursuant to M.R. … Such habit may be proven by evidence of specific instances of conduct numerous enough to establish that the habit exists. M.R. Evid. 406(b).

Renee Legrand v. York County Judge of Probate

168 A.3d 783 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 25, 2017

In order to obtain the declaratory relief sought here, however, the injury that qualifies the litigant to be a class member must be of constitutional magnitude. … Accordingly, the court did not err in declining to reach the underlying question of whether LeGrand had established violations of substantive due process.

Gardiner Trust Co. v. Augusta Trust Co.

134 Me. 191 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 6, 1936

Nothing is said specifically about a guaranty, but one was clearly intended. … But, in the case of a bank, which is in a sense a public institution, which holds itself out as qualified to care for the money of others, it is more than ever important that its charter should be strictly construed, and

In re Steven L.

153 A.3d 764 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 12, 2017

Findings supporting an order for involuntary admission to a progressive treatment program must be established by clear and convincing evidence. See Pitts v. … Licensed and qualified community providers are available to support the treatment plan; E. The patient is unlikely to follow the treatment plan voluntarily; F.

Rush v. Buckley

70 L.R.A. 464 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 19, 1905

The rule is well established that judges of courts of superior jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even where such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction. … In that case it is said: “The constitution guarantees no man immunity from arrest. It guarantees him a fair and impartial trial.

State v. Jobin

510 A.2d 527 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 29, 1986

Here, the State has steadfastly denied that Gilbert was given immunity from prosecution in exchange for furnishing evidence of narcotics trafficking. … The record clearly reflects that the jury was aware of the discrepancy, so the chemist’s testimony was not needed to establish its existence. M.R.Evid. 702; VII J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1923 (Chadbourne ed. 1978).

Reed v. Creamer

118 Me. 317 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 18, 1919

Here however there are qualifying and explanatory words which modify and overrule the presumption of a fee. … case at bar, although, so far as the actual intent is concerned, the words of this will, giving only the use, improvement and income of the property instead of the property itself as in the Austin case, reveal far more clearly