Case law

Fecteau v. State Employee Health Commission

690 A.2d 500 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 4, 1997

In addition, she argues that the removal was a “medical necessity” which also qualified for coverage. … The contract on its face clearly does not provide for the removal of amalgam fillings.

Woodman v. Dana

52 Me. 9 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1860

However that may be elsewhere, in this State the practical application of the rule is clearly defined and well settled. … To establish this proposition required only proof of the signature of the intestate.

Doherty v. Grady

105 Me. 36 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 24, 1908

The case shows that executors of the will were duly appointed and qualified and that Mary R. … But a careful consideration of every item of the will, disclosing the use of the phrase "in equal shares” three times, differing a little in form but not in meaning, seems to clearly indicate a purpose in the mind of the

King Resources Co. v. Environmental Improvement Commission

270 A.2d 863 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 19, 1970

Plaintiff then participated on May 22, 1970, under protest and reservation of rights, at a hearing before the Commission on Plaintiff’s qualified application for license. … by clear and unambiguous language and that a statute in derogation of it will not effect a change thereof beyond that clearly indicated either by express terms or by necessary implication.

State v. Wardwell

158 Me. 307 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 21, 1962

The decision is conclusive unless it clearly appears that the evidence was not justified or that it was based upon some error of law. Hunter v. Tolman, 146 Me. 259, 268 . We see no error in admitting this testimony. … In the instant case the State must first establish the identity of the burned body as that of Anita Wardwell.

State v. Lewis

611 A.2d 69 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 17, 1992

Clearly, in the present case, defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, at least with respect to the two brown bags contained inside the carry-on bag. … Thus the trooper’s search does not qualify as a search incident to defendant’s arrest for operating under the influence.

Runnells v. Quinn

890 A.2d 713 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 27, 2006

be offset, considering that there were separate verdict forms on multiple claims. [¶ 13] The court determined that it would not award costs to either party “because, considering the litigation as a whole, neither was a clearly … Thus, residences of homeowners that include one or two rental units would qualify as a residence under the plain meaning of the term “residence” as defined in the HCCA. [¶ 19] Section 1487 of the HCCA requires that any home

Shattuck

73 Me. 318 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 14, 1882

It does not appear that they have been notified or in any way made a party, which is clearly necessary before judgment can be entered against them. … It is an adjective and qualifies convenience and that alone. The bridge was built for the benefit of the company, that it might make a profit from it. This profit is the convenience of the company.

Dwyer v. State

151 Me. 382 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 17, 1956

The status of the law on this particular issue is in doubt, and this is the first time that this issue has been clearly presented to the Law Court for determination. … So in the case at bar, this petitioner has legal opportunity to establish his constitutional rights, if it appears that he has been unjustly deprived of them.

Norman Gaudette v. Terry M. Davis

160 A.3d 1190 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 9, 2017

Id. ¶ 36. [¶ 41] The prima facie showing that we established in Nader I avoided the constitutional impediments that the Court’s newly-established procedure creates. … But any subrogation by the Legislature of a common law cause of action needs to be clearly stated on the face of the statute. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.

In Re Child of Barni A.

2024 ME 16 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 31, 2024

But the plan failed to mention that the child legally qualifies for 24/7 nursing care under MaineCare. … Furthermore, the record clearly shows that the mother was not afforded a realistic opportunity to meet the child’s medical needs because the mother’s visits with the child were severely limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic

State v. Collins

297 A.2d 620 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 8, 1972

This point has important significance since the evidence clearly establishes that defendant’s underlying condition was essentially no different in April of 1970 from what it had been on September 19, 1969 and thereafter. … Clearly, then, the evidence was adequate to authorize as a rational conclusion by the jury that defendant had failed to meet an ultimate burden of proof reposing upon him to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence

State v. Boynton

143 Me. 313 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 22, 1948

In dilatory pleas, and a plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, “every material fact” necessary to its maintenance “must be clearly stated, and not left to inference or presumption. … If these were both sufficient defenses, as a matter of form the plea would clearly be bad for duplicity. State v. Pike, supra; State v. Heselton, supra.

In Re Kaleb D.

769 A.2d 179 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 5, 2001

The mother’s post-dismissal actions are not immune from subsequent DHS proceedings merely because they are similar in nature to the allegations DHS made against the mother in the prior dismissed petition. … See In re Thomas B., 1998 ME 236, ¶2, 719 A.2d 529, 530 (holding, when “determining the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the District Court, ‘any finding, whether express or assumed, is tested under the “clearly erroneous

Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster

772 A.2d 842 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 2, 2001

The exception is applicable, for instance, where a court has denied a summary judgment raising a *848 claim of immunity. Pratt v. … Nickerson, 637 A.2d 1152, 1154 (Me.1994) (a party seeking summary judgment “has the burden of demonstrating clearly that there is no genuine issue of fact”) (quoting 2 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice, § 56.4

State v. Gervais

317 A.2d 796 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 9, 1974

Sargent, on the other hand, told his treating physician at the hospital that he did not know the person who shot him nor could he clearly identify his assailant’s facial features. … [Defendant’s counsel]: “So that I understand the Court’s ruling, if we qualified or laid a necessary foundation to qualify under the rule of admission against penal interest of the deceased, necessary foundation being mainly

Paul A. Dyer v. Superintendent of Insurance

69 A.3d 416 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 25, 2013

Additionally, a representative of Old Mutual testified that the company offers a separate product specifically designed for seniors to qualify for Medicaid. … The Superintendent’s choice of the maximum penalties—$5,500 for eleven separate findings of violations of the insurance code—was clearly within the bounds of the law and is not unreasonable in light of the facts of this

State v. Roberts

26 Me. 263 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 15, 1846

Allen, Esq. then and now one of the Justices of the District Court for the State of Maine, duly qualified and empowered to peiv form the duties of that office, at Bangor aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, on the 10th day … And “in general when any particular fact is averred, it should be stated to be done then and there, after the county and ville have been clearly expressed in the body of the indictment, and the allegation of time and place

State v. Bonney

427 A.2d 467 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 24, 1981

The Criminal Code elsewhere sets forth definitions relating to drug offenses, among which is the definition of “trafficking”: As used in this Title, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise … The only proof of the contents of the capsules was a signed, sworn certificate of laboratory analysis admitted in lieu of a qualified witness pursuant to 17-A M.R. S.A. § 1112.

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

2014 ME 89 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 3, 2014

Given this overlap in source, we have not always clearly distinguished between issues of standing and issues of proof. … Id. [¶19] In this matter, the Bank failed to establish two of the eight foreclosure elements.