Case law

Robert E. Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland

2025 ME 6 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 28, 2025

The legislature clearly had these concerns in mind in enacting Utah Code section 78B-2-308(7). And that judgment is an eminently reasonable one at a policy level. … It simply removed the bar against iling a lawsuit that seeks to establish liability for past conduct.

Bates v. Department of Behavioral & Developmental Services

863 A.2d 890 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 17, 2004

The court stated: “Clearly the defendants have failed to show that a mental health system is in place and is meeting the needs of all class members who want services.” … The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes.

In re Children of Jeremy A.

187 A.3d 602 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 26, 2018

cause of Nathaniel’s death, “did not accept responsibility for Nathaniel's death, and . . . expressed their belief that his death was caused by some other undiagnosed medical problem, possibly due to his immunizations … In response, the Department also presented the testimony of a qualified physician who roundly and vigorously disagreed with the parents’ expert both on the particular aspects of Nathaniel’s fatal injuries

Jones v. Petit

473 A.2d 879 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 5, 1984

formula, but failed to meet the threshold test established by OBRA. … Its unadorned use, when coupled with the phrase “from employment,” clearly denotes a reference to the recipient’s wages without regard to other elements of the eligibility criteria.

James Bailey Co. v. Darling

119 Me. 326 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 25, 1920

The case is clearly distinguishable from Bearce v. Washburn, 43 Maine, 564. … Counsel apparently acquiesced in those rulings; they were clearly right.

Inhabitants of the Town of Warren v. Norwood

138 Me. 180 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 20, 1941

Moody,” with no evidence to establish the fact of resignation. … These variations come clearly within the rule laid down in Greene v.

Laskey v. SD Warren Company

774 A.2d 358 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 11, 2001

. [¶ 4] Appointment and establishment of a roster of IMEs is governed by 39-A M.R.S.A. § 312(1): 1. Examiner system. … The Board’s rules clearly give the hearing officer a standard to apply, in any individual case, to determine if there is an unacceptable conflict.

Budge v. Town of Millinocket

55 A.3d 484 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 25, 2012

In the amendment made that year, the Town added the following language: Employees, other than School Department employees, who retire from town service and qualify for retirement or disability benefits under the Maine State … A128-17(D), replacing the emphasized language quoted above from the 1991 policy with the following language: Employees hired prior to August 8, 1991, other than School Department employees, who retire from town service and qualify

Bradstreet v. Bradstreet

158 Me. 140 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 27, 1962

He also stated without qualifying words that “the oral testimony in the case did not carry greater weight, one way or the other.” He used similar language in other parts of his decree. … The declaration did not necessarily establish the true line, but was evidence to be considered with other evidence as bearing on the location of the disputed line.

Sheikh v. Haji

32 A.3d 1065 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 29, 2011

In the summer of 2006, Habibo submitted documentation to the Social Security Administration that ultimately qualified her to receive Federal Supplemental Security Income benefits on account of an “organic mental disorder. … The record establishes, and the court found, that Habibo received consistent and substantial support from her family in caring for the children. [¶ 10] The District Court’s February 2011 judgment ultimately established “parallel

State v. Prior

662 A.2d 225 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 20, 1995

Rule 16(b) clearly specifies that the obligation of the attorney for the State extends only to matters within the possession or control of any official or employee of “this state or any political subdivision thereof.” … authority, utilize its personnel and facilities to assist any Federal agency, State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision thereof ... to perform any activity for which such personnel and facilities are especially qualified

Planning Bd. of Town of Naples v. Michaud

444 A.2d 40 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1982

was not clearly erroneous. … Indeed, so far from immunizing the Birch Point Colony Club from regulation under the subdivision law, the absence of clearly drawn boundaries, which could only be delineated by litigation, may well be another reason for the

Estate of Campbell

704 A.2d 329 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 4, 1997

Because Mary’s liquid assets were almost depleted, John made inquiries of Massachusetts officials regarding how Mary could qualify for Medicaid assistance. … In Ruebsamen , we established the procedural steps necessary before imposing a constructive trust based on an abuse of a fiduciary or confidential relationship: The party seeking the imposition of the trust must first establish

Henderson v. Berce

142 Me. 242 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 22, 1946

The language of the act clearly shows that it was intended to be regulatory, and penal only if the act was knowingly or wilfully violated. … Without performing the conditions set forth in sections five, six and seven the seeds do not qualify for certification.

Chase v. State

227 A.2d 455 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 21, 1967

The findings are to be tested by the “Clearly Erroneous” Rule. Rule 52 M.R.C.P.; Harriman v. Spaulding, 156 Me. 440 , 165 A.2d 47 . … He has failed to sustain his burden of showing that the Justice below was “clearly erroneous” in his findings. The order will be, Appeal denied. WEBBER, J., did not sit.

State v. Cote

560 A.2d 558 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 14, 1989

I agree that on this record the defendant did not establish that alcoholism entitled him to an insanity defense instruction. … If the Court means to say that alcoholism per se could never qualify, however, I do not agree.

Emery Waterhouse Co. v. Lea

467 A.2d 986 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 4, 1983

that liability for such damages will be fastened on the indemnitor, and words of general import will not be read as expressing such an intent and establishing by inference such liability. … Reagan, 159 Me. 292 , 192 A.2d 24 (1963), we held that interspousal immunity would not prevent contribution from a tortfeasor immune from direct suit.

Forbes v. Wells Beach Casino, Inc.

307 A.2d 210 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 28, 1973

On April 11, 1966 the Town brought a civil action to establish and confirm its title to the premises. On April 11, 1968 Elias M. … Although no rule has been declared in Maine as to the right of the highest good-faith bidder at a sale of real estate to take the property when a higher bid is proved not to be a good-faith bid, such a principle has been clearly

Ross v. Oxford Paper Company

363 A.2d 712 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 16, 1976

The Commissioner found that date to be March 17, 1974, noting that “[t]his is when the ‘injury’ became established as a matter of fact which is not denied by anyone.” *714 The disability claimed in the instant case would … The majority of the Court was of the opinion that such a holding of noncompensability was clearly necessitated by Maine precedent.

Hughes v. Black

156 Me. 69 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 11, 1960

That this bill of exceptions is not in compliance with established procedure is clearly apparent. In the recent case of Inhabitants of Owls Head v. … Belcher, supra, spells out the nature of the relationship on the part of a judge which will dis *78 qualify him.