Case law

Weeks v. Hackett

104 Me. 264 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 11, 1908

Hackett; that if the coin was purposely buried in the soil and forgotten or its place of concealment remained undisclosed by reason of the death of the depositor, the finder acquired a right to the possession of it and a qualified … Roberts, et al., 44 Oreg. 108 , 74 Pac: 913) for while it is not in controversy that the coins here in question clearly fall within the common law definition of treasure-trove, the general rule is established by a substantially

Fiber Materials, Inc. v. Subilia

974 A.2d 918 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 16, 2009

confidential information is simply not present in the case at bar. [¶ 20] Furthermore, although in Markheim and Butler we addressed in an interlocutory appeal the denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney, this result is clearly … For example, "[t]he work product rule gives a qualified protection to unprivileged information prepared in anticipation of trial, which can be overcome by a showing of substantial need.

Simmons v. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission

222 A.2d 366 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 26, 1966

estate dealer, who, on the evening of the first day of trial, had refreshed his recollection on principles of real estate appraising from the reference book, which he owned, and which he had used as a text in preparing to qualify … investigation, trial court held “the incident was entirely harmless” and upon exceptions it was held that the trial court’s discretion “cannot be reviewed by an appellate court unless it is made to appear that the decision was clearly

Hayhurst v. Morin

104 Me. 169 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 8, 1908

Letourneau was duly qualified as trustee in bankruptcy of Morin’s estate, and in that capacity he appeared in defense of this cause to represent the interests of the creditors. … But in all of these cases the rule of law was clearly stated that such an oral agreement could not be set up against a subsequent mortgagee or attaching creditor ; nor could it be invoked against the mortgagor himself or

State v. Tellier

526 A.2d 941 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1987

Unless the trial court clearly erred or abused its discretion, however, the evidentiary ruling will stand. See State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892, 894 (Me.1981); Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 702.1, at 171 (1976). … Penrod’s testimony was to establish that he had a motive other than guilt to confess the crime to his ex-girlfriends. 3 An essential aspect of Dr.

In re Child of Radience K.

208 A.3d 380 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 21, 2019

show clearly and convincingly that active efforts had been made to prevent the fracture of this Indian family but that the efforts were unsuccessful. … The list of motions that qualify for this treatment is explicitly exhaustive, as the Rule states that it “does not apply to any post-judgment motion that is not listed” therein.

LaDew v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardation

532 A.2d 1051 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 2, 1987

S.A. § 104 — A a BRI acquittee must show (clearly and convincingly) that the mental disease or defect by reason of which he was relieved of criminal responsibility no longer exists, or at least no longer poses a danger to … In other words, we must affirm unless the Superior Court acted irrationally in failing to be satisfied that clear and convincing evidence showed LaDew to be qualified for release. See Taylor v.

Gilman v. Burnett

116 Me. 382 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 27, 1917

The plaintiff, Jennie Gilman, named as her successor, has been duly appointed and qualified. … The established rules of law, however, as applied to the construction and execution of charitable trusts will not permit this course to be pursued.

Warren v. Warren

866 A.2d 97 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 18, 2005

P. 53(e)(2), determined that the referee’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and entered judgment adopting the referee’s report. … This difference, he asserts, qualifies him for reimbursement support. [¶ 42] Title 19-A M.R.S.A. § 951-A(2) lists five possible types of spousal support, including reimbursement support.

Coastal Ventures v. Alsham Plaza, LLC

1 A.3d 416 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 20, 2010

The court did not clearly err in finding that Alsham failed to meet its burden of establishing the easement was overburdened. … Even if we were to adopt this standard, the parties' inability to agree on a date for an inventory would not qualify under this rule. 7 . Section 225 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts states: § 225.

Klingerman v. SOL Corp. of Maine

505 A.2d 474 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 24, 1986

It is not the function of this Court to judge the social desirability of a grant of immunity to the vendors of alcoholic beverages. We must fairly apply the law as developed in this jurisdiction. … Plaintiff has alleged facts that, if proved, would establish that defendants violated section 303.

Peirce v. City of Bangor

105 Me. 413 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1909

S., ch. 4, sec. 91, and ch. 23, sections 8 and 20, construed in pari materia clearly establish this proposition. Section 8 provides that any person aggrieved by the estimate of damages .... "may appeal therefrom.” … For the most obvious reason and by established law it was not.

Chadwick-BaRoss, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Corp.

483 A.2d 711 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 31, 1984

The supervising attorney was a qualified witness to testify in general as to his firm’s billing practices, and thus was able to qualify those records under this exception to the hearsay rule. … Although the amount charged by other firms is clearly hearsay and as such should have not been admitted in evidence, the failure to exclude that evidence is harmless error.

Vigue v. Chapman

138 Me. 206 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 22, 1941

except when entirely necessary to a decision of the cause in which it is raised,” seems to preclude a present consideration of the equal process issue, since the proceedings taken to effect the forfeiture so clearly fell … given merely in one affirmative answer to an inquiry, which on the record may have *211 referred merely to the selectmen elected in 1939, since that was the last definite item of testimony preceding it, “and they were duly qualified

Guardianship of Isabella Ard

154 A.3d 609 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 19, 2017

See id. [¶22] Rule 66(d) establishes a comprehensive procedure to determine the imposition of remedial sanctions. … Service must be made “by an officer qualified to serve civil process.” Id.

Robinson v. Adams

62 Me. 369 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1870

The rejection of this evidence was clearly within the well-established rule, that the contents of a written document cannot be given by a witness, except in case of loss or inability to obtain it. … But if open, we do not find, on perusal of the report, any admission which is clearly illegal.

State v. Smith

384 A.2d 687 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 19, 1978

Although she received no formal grant of immunity, Mrs. Smith was not indicted and also testified on behalf of the State. Following a voir dire hearing in which Mrs. … In the instant case there can be little doubt that when the defendant revealed the stolen objects to his wife he was imparting a confidence as clearly as if he had told his wife, “I have stolen a gun and a camera.”

Rozanski v. A-P-A Transport, Inc.

512 A.2d 335 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 11, 1986

A-P-A failed to meet the evidentiary burden of establishing a BFOQ as an affirmative defense. … On the record before us, we cannot say that finding was clearly erroneous. See M.R.Civ. P. 52(a). IV.

Bojarski v. Bojarski

2012 Me. 56 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 12, 2012

Theberge, 2010 ME 132, ¶ 17 , 9 A.3d 809 . [¶ 24] The court’s finding that the debt owed on the NFCU credit card was $28,000 is clearly erroneous. … Accordingly, the court’s finding that the value of the debt on the NFCU credit card was $28,000 is not supported by competent evidence in the record and is clearly erroneous. C.

Spottiswoode v. Levine

730 A.2d 166 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 25, 1999

“[T]he failure of the trial justice clearly to state the factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions both hinders effective appellate review and fails to inform either the parties or the appellate … RBK could not recover damages or obtain injunctive relief under the UTSA without establishing “misappropriation,” See 10 M.R.S.A § 1544.