Case law

State v. Cates

99 Me. 68 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 24, 1904

S., c. 128, § 13,) does not establish numerous independent offenses, — it established but one offense. It declares ‘every lottery, scheme or device of chance’ to be a nuisance. … In the case at bar “the statute does not establish numerous independent offenses.”

Toussaint v. Town of Harpswell

698 A.2d 1063 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 12, 1997

establish otherwise. … On the record before us we cannot say that the decision is clearly erroneous. The entry is: Judgment vacated.

Adams v. Carver

6 Me. 390 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1830

Damon; so that the testimony rejected was upon this ground clearly irrelevant. … But the judge, in his opinion, sustained the rejection upon another point; that the indorsement being unqualified, the indorser could not be received as a witness to qualify it, by establishing an interest in himself.

Fleming v. Gardner

658 A.2d 1074 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 25, 1995

complaint and moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for the failure of Fleming to state a claim for which relief could be granted and on the further ground that as court-appointed counsel they were immune … Although the court stated it was satisfied that the record of the *1077 M.R.Crim.P. 11 proceedings conducted on May 7, 1992, at which Fleming had entered guilty pleas, clearly reflected he had done so knowingly and voluntarily

Coffin v. Rich

45 Me. 507 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1858

ground that, though the statute imposed new personal liabilities upon the members, it did not affect the corporation as such. “ It had no tendency to impair, or in any way to *510 affect or modify, any power, privilege, or immunity … A statute making members of corporations personally liable for the corporate debts is clearly within this definition, and therefore can be held to operate prospectively only.

Gilman v. Gilman

54 Me. 453 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

An executor, though qualified as such by the laws of another State, has no authority to act in this. By B. … It is for the respondent to establish additional credits, if any there be, to which he is justly entitled.

Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

589 A.2d 38 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 4, 1991

Thus, the PUC’s findings of fact were basically supported by the totality of the evidence of record and not clearly erroneous. … Chapter 330 of the Pub-lie Utilities Commission Rules and Regulations establishes the filing requirements for petitions of public convenience and necessity for the construction of new generating facilities of more than 1,000

State v. Thibeault

402 A.2d 445 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 25, 1979

That the initial entry must be trespassory 2 was established in Maine in State v. … The instruction invited the jury to consider whether, in the words of the presiding Justice, a “qualified license” existed.

Hamilton v. Caribou Water, Light & Power Co.

121 Me. 422 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 8, 1922

But since the practice in such proceedings has not become established, the questions raised will be considered so far as the case before us will permit. … The findings of the Commission upon questions of fact must be given the weight and effect due to the decisions of a tribunal authorized by law and qualified by training and experience.

Hodgdon v. Clark

84 Me. 314 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 15, 1892

But the testimony fails to raise even a suspicion of fraudulent procurement or undue influence, and clearly shows that the property was originally conveyed to Mrs. … Clark, wras clearly understood and the result freely accepted by her father.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Scott Greenleaf

124 A.3d 1122 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 22, 2015

In light of this overlap, we endeavored to “clearly distinguish[] between issues of standing and issues of proof.” Id. … We determined that a party qualifies as a “mortgagee” or person claiming thereunder— and therefore has standing to seek foreclosure—only if that party can show both an enforceable interest in the note and ownership of

Steeves v. Irwin

233 A.2d 126 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 15, 1967

defendant believed that his affirmative defenses were based on facts which if admitted to be true would be dispositive of the pending action as a matter of law, he could under Rule 56 M.R.C.P. prior to trial attempt to establish … In the instant case, the defendant’s supportive affidavit did not qualify under any one of the three stated requirements, let alone under all three of them.

Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland

871 A.2d 1208 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 3, 2005

In balancing the relevant interests, therefore, we addressed the facts presented in Swanson and neither purported to establish a blanket tort immunity for religious organizations, nor intended the decision to be the final … , J., concurring). [¶ 51] What most clearly distinguishes the Diocese’s free exercise claim in this case from Smith, Lukumi, and the other free exercise decisions of the U.S.

State v. Stone

294 A.2d 683 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 22, 1972

Clearly, at the appellate level, we may not ourselves provide the needed findings, as findings of fact; this would be an improper invasion of the domain of the fact-finder. … It was held that no “immunity bath for crime” results and “a new and independent prosecution for the same crime . . . ” may be had. (p. 322, 62 A.2d p. 188)

Kirk v. Marquis

391 A.2d 335 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 18, 1978

His statements thus qualify for the exception declared by Rule 803(3) of the Maine Rules of Evidence. The executor asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff. … Here there clearly was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that an implied contractual agreement existed.

Silverman v. Town of Alton

451 A.2d 103 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 13, 1982

The plaintiffs as the party claiming the exemption have the burden of establishing it and must bring their case clearly within the spirit and intent of the act creating the exemption. … and the incidental scientific objective to benefit the University of Maine by permitting use of the premises in conjunction with certain academic or scientific programs of the University is insufficient in this case to qualify

State v. MacKenzie

161 Me. 123 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 6, 1965

The finding of the single justice “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Rule 52 M.R.C.P. … As applied to the entry, no constitutional violation is established.

Page v. General Electric Co.

391 A.2d 303 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 1, 1978

Under the principle stated above, this was sufficient to establish incapacity. Lancaster v. Cooper Industries, supra; Ray’s Case, 122 Me. 108 , 119 A. 191 (1922). Ray’s Case presented the same situation. … Under 26 M.R.S.A. § 1192(3), in order to qualify for unemployment benefits it is necessary for an unemployed person to be “able to work”; therefore, the appellants argue, Mrs.

State v. Longley

483 A.2d 725 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 1, 1984

The trial court’s decision that Phillips was qualified to testify as an expert on accident reconstruction certainly fell within its reasonable discretion. … No culpable state of mind is required to establish the offense of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

State v. Reeves

499 A.2d 130 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 4, 1985

The decision of the suppression justice must stand unless “clearly erroneous.” Id. A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if there is any competent evidence in the record to support it. State v. … To establish an abuse of discretion under Rule 16(d) is a difficult task.