Case law

Josh Rinaldi v. Maine Correctional Center

2025 ME 60 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 8, 2025

Adaptation is most clearly demonstrated by the design, manufacture, or modification of the object for use on the realty. See id. ¶ 20. … But in McDonald, the area where the plaintiff fell was clearly part of the building. See McDonald, 2020 ME 119, ¶¶ 1-5, 239 A.3d 662.

Turner v. Collins

390 A.2d 537 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 31, 1978

to actions sounding in tort, thereby to establish a right of recovery of the full amount of the judgments entered against the State. … The provision in the Resolve relating to the ordinary “conduct” of an action and to the “liabilities of the parties and elements of damage” is qualified in the same paragraph of the Resolve by the express provision that “

Bell v. Town of Wells

510 A.2d 509 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 23, 1986

doctrine of sovereign immunity bar this suit? … Thus, in Cush-ing, the State was clearly the real party in interest based on its title ownership, its clearly established trustee status, and its role as grantor of the interests in question. 420 A.2d at 923 .

Selby v. Cumberland County

796 A.2d 678 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 2002

Immunity exists even when the official lacked the authority to do the act, or abused the discretion. 5 Id. [¶ 7] An act qualifies as a discretionary function if the act is essential to the realization or accomplishment of … A governmental official will not be shielded from liability, however, for actions that so clearly exceed the scope of the official’s authority that the official cannot be said to be acting in an official capacity.

Susan Hamilton v. Drummond Woodsum

223 A.3d 904 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 21, 2020

In 2009, Hamilton became the full-time coordinator of the MSA. 2 We recognize that this appeal is interlocutory, but, because the asserted basis for DW’s appeal is its complete or qualified immunity pursuant to … Hamilton’s complaint establishes that DW was hired to perform a governmental function on behalf of a governmental entity consistent with that governmental entity’s contractual and legal obligations.

State v. Melvin

390 A.2d 1024 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1978

immunity to a witness against the defendant. … The overwhelming evidence of guilt that was independently produced by the State clearly corroborated the trustworthiness of the confession.

Richards v. Ellis

233 A.2d 37 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 6, 1967

A finding and judgment more sensitive to the applicant than that he has not established his good moral character can hardly be imagined. … within the principles established in Stephenson v.

Portland, Saco & Portsmouth R. R. v. City of Saco

60 Me. 196 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1872

They are not land, but are clearly distinguishable from it. The definition of the terms, depot, and land, are distinct and dissimilar. … , or their qualified right to, or limited use of, the real estate acquired under their charter by right of eminent domain; and certain we are, that if there is any such implied exemption, it is subordinate to the sovereign

Penny v. Walker

64 Me. 430 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

The single question is whether a mail-carrier, who is at the time engaged in conveying the United States mail, is justified in using force to repel an officer duly qualified and having a legal warrant for his arrest to answer … It may be regarded as certain that it was no part of the design of congress in these provisions to afford to the employees of the post office department, or to mail contractors and their servants, immunity from arrest at

Myshrall v. Key Bank National Ass'n

802 A.2d 419 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 30, 2002

Although it does not completely preempt state law causes of action for the mishandling of consumer credit information, 5 section 1681h(e) gives furnishers of credit information qualified immunity from state law causes of … This qualified immunity, however, is not available to a defendant who acts with malice or a willful intent to injure the plaintiff. Id.

Jensen v. Augusta Mental Health Institute

574 A.2d 885 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 17, 1990

The only question before us is whether the Plaintiffs complaint alleges facts that fit her claims within the “Public Building” exception to the bar of governmental immunity that is established by 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(2) ( … Noting that courts strictly construe any exception to governmental tort claims immunity, Clockedile v.

Nelson v. Maine Turnpike Authority

157 Me. 174 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 24, 1961

It is of interest and significance that in many instances liability in tort of a Turnpike Authority or Agency is established by statute, or, stated differently, that there is express *182 waiver of governmental immunity to … Two justices in dissenting believed “that the question of abolishing governmental immunity is for the Legislature.” The problem is clearly set forth in the learned opinions of the Illinois and California Courts.

Kalloch v. Newbert

105 Me. 23 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 22, 1908

The defendant was a deputy enforcement commissioner duly appointed and qualified under chapter 92, Public Laws of 1905. … There is nothing in the interstate commerce law that renders intoxicating liquors immune from seizure and we are aware of no decision that so holds.

Nader v. Maine Democratic Party

2012 Me. 57 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 19, 2012

The Maine Constitution provides a right of redress through the courts for injuries, stating, “Every person, for an injury inflicted on the person or the person’s reputation, property or immunities, shall have remedy by due … “These fundamental rights are implicated most clearly where minor-party access to the ballot is restricted.”

Equifax Services, Inc. v. Cohen

420 A.2d 189 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 9, 1980

Qualified Immunity. … furthered by the Federal Act’s grant of qualified immunity.

Rippett v. Bemis

672 A.2d 82 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 16, 1996

On those claims for which Rippett is unable to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to an element, we review de novo the court’s decisions of law based on the established facts. Bliss v. … Stated affirmatively, a public official is entitled to qualified immunity if he can establish either that 1) he did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights; or 2) given the state of the law a reasonable official

City of South Portland v. State

476 A.2d 690 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 30, 1984

immediately, upon the employment of such qualified public accountant file the name and address with the state department of audit, and such qualified public accountant shall, within 10 days after making the report of the … In the absence of a clearly expressed intent, we do not believe Congress in enacting the forerunner of section 1983 meant to create a new right in favor of a municipality. 13 .

Mueller v. Penobscot Valley Hospital

538 A.2d 294 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 8, 1988

When viewed in its entirety, the Act clearly indicates that the Legislature intended its provisions to apply only to actions arising in tort. … shall be immune from suit on any and all claims seeking recovery of damages.”

State v. Vickers

309 A.2d 324 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 11, 1973

This power of government to compel persons to give testimonial evidence is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Kastigar v. United States, supra. … We are clearly not confronted with such a situation in the present case. We shall withhold judgment on such a problem until we are faced with it. The entry will be Appeal denied.

Otis Elevator Co. of Maine v. F.W. Cunningham & Sons

454 A.2d 335 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 4, 1983

It concluded that the policies underlying interspousal immunity would not be frustrated by allowing contribution and, therefore, “[t]he equities clearly preponderate in favor of just contribution for the third party rather … than of undeserved immunity for the joint tort-fea-sor husband.”