Case law

David A. Jones v. Secretary of State

238 A.3d 982 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 22, 2020

To vote, a person must “have established and maintain a voting residence in [a] municipality” and be registered to vote in that municipality. 21-A M.R.S. §§ 111(3), (4), 112 (2020). … These sources clearly indicate that the Legislature contemplated that circulators would be registered voters when they circulated petitions—not that they would become registered voters after circulation but before submitting

State v. Castonguay

240 A.2d 747 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 24, 1968

In the case at bar the record does not establish that the defendant at any time was arrested under the warrant. … For convenience throughout the opinion, unless clearly noted otherwise, we discuss constitutional issues in terms of the Federal Constitution. In Murphy v. N.Y.

State v. Lewis

373 A.2d 603 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 17, 1977

It is well established, however, that questions of credibility are reserved for the determination of the jury (State v. … This determination by the presiding Justice is one of fact and is binding on the appellate court unless clearly erroneous. State v. Sawyer, 1974, Me., 314 A.2d 830 .

Tomlinson v. Clement Bros.

130 Me. 189 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 14, 1931

If a verdict would be clearly against the evidence, the question is one of law. Brown v. … In other words, it was for them to approach and pass, each in qualified expectation that the other would use consistent caution, and both exercising commensurate watchfulness.

Collagan v. Burns

57 Me. 449 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

H. 391. *474 There being a subsisting- verdict in this case, and a majority of the justices qualified to sit not concurring in sustaining the exceptions, there must, in accordance with Pub. … To admit such declarations seems to me *481 to be repugnant to well-established rules of evidence, and to abolish the clearly defined and uniformly recognized distinction between direct and hearsay evidence.

Silsby v. Allen's Blueberry Freezer, Inc.

501 A.2d 1290 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 9, 1985

Establishment. A board of appeals is established in any municipality which adopts a zoning ordinance. … Lothridge, 447 A.2d 473, 476 (Me.1982) (a town’s zoning board of appeals had authority under section 4963(2)(B) to make initial determination whether applicant qualified for exception.)

Canning v. State Department of Transportation

347 A.2d 605 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 20, 1975

The criteria for entitlement to compensation for injury are established by section 51 of the Maine Workmen’s Compensation Act which, at the time the claimant was injured, require, inter alia, that the injury be received “ … Our review of the testimony of the two physicians convinces us that the Commissioner was not clearly in error in concluding that the claimant’s condition, after his release from the hospital, was the same as it had been before

Jackson Advertising Corp. v. State Tax Assessor

551 A.2d 1365 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 15, 1988

(emphasis supplied). 7 Jackson’s work clearly results in products that can be “seen ... touched ... … No contention is made in this case, however, that any of the items qualify as preliminary art.

King v. Pillsbury

115 Me. 528 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 9, 1917

The preliminary query as to whether the witness was qualified to so testify was within the discretion of the presiding Justice. The propriety of receiving such evidence is well settled. … It having been settled by the law from time immemorial that such a statement would be libellous if untrue, it was clearly the duty of the court to so state.

Hathorn v. Calef

53 Me. 471 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1866

This case has been before the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was decided that the qualified obligation resting upon the stockholders of the K. & P. R. R. … Co. are material at all, we shall find it difficult to establish the proposition that the Legislature intended to change that Act, from a public to a private one, even so far as this corporation is concerned.

20 Thames Street LLC v. Ocean State Job Lot of Maine 2017 LLC

252 A.3d 516 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 24, 2021

The parties’ arguments and the court’s decision by their very terms clearly do not assert or address issue preclusion, and we decline to recharacterize their arguments. … The mere fact that an issue was raised in a pleading does not establish that the issue was actually litigated.

Sawyer v. Town of Skowhegan

57 Me. 500 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1868

The doctrine is already established, and we see no good reason for overturning it. … It is for such purposes the equity court is established.

Brown v. Department of Health & Human Services

898 A.2d 387 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 2, 2006

As testified to by its executive director, the Aroostook Agency on Aging concluded that the Browns met three of the four criteria required to qualify for the Meals on Wheels program then in effect. … The undisputed facts establish that the Browns satisfy the sole eligibility criterion they were deemed by the Commissioner to have failed.

In re Children of Mary J.

199 A.3d 231 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 3, 2019

Hanscom, 2014 ME 148, ¶ 8, 106 A.3d 1150 (“A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if no competent evidence supports it.”). [¶3] In September 2017, the Department filed a child protection petition … Moreover, the State has a well-established parens patriae interest in the safety and well-being of the children within its jurisdiction.

State v. Libby

546 A.2d 444 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 29, 1988

That finding is not clearly erroneous because there is competent evidence to support it. See State v. … Defendant contends that the substance of the call was not sufficiently distinctive to qualify under Rule 901(b)(4) because four additional State witnesses also knew of the call’s contents.

Sullivan v. McCafferty

117 Me. 1 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1917

The giving of that qualified instruction instead of the specific instruction requested, is the ground of the first exception. … And no principle is more clearly established by an entire uniformity of decisions, than that damages in actions for slander may be increased upon proof of actual malice. True v. Plumley, 36 Maine, 466, 484.

Opinion of the Justices

216 A.2d 651 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 27, 1966

The Senate shall consist of not less than thirty nor more than forty Senators, elected at the same time and for the same term as Representatives by the qualified electors of the districts into which the State shall be from … While we do not intend to indicate that decennial reapportionment is a constitutional requisite, compliance with such an approach would clearly meet the minimal requirements for maintaining a reasonably current scheme of

State of Maine v. Keith Coleman

181 A.3d 689 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 22, 2018

Flomenbaum’s termination are directly relevant to an aspect of his professional credentials that the State used to qualify Dr. Flomenbaum as an expert in this case. … In establishing Dr.

State v. Buzynski

330 A.2d 422 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 27, 1974

Appellant made an abortive effort to establish an alibi, although he did not testify himself. … Bernard MacKinnon, a qualified psychiatrist, testified for the appellant that it was his opinion that the alleged criminal conduct of the defendant would not have occurred “were it not for the abnormal condition of his mind

State of Maine v. Karl Maine

155 A.3d 871 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 2, 2017

Finally, he argues that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Maine intentionally set fire to the diner. B. … Irving, 2003 ME 31, ¶ 14, 818 A.2d 204 (where three qualified experts testified to the reliability of use of a particular methodology in determining vehicle speed, a court did not abuse discretion