Case law

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. Town of Fryeburg

967 A.2d 702 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 19, 2009

In extensive written findings, the Planning Board found that Poland Spring’s project met the standards set out in the ordinance to qualify as an omitted use in the rural residential district. … decision, the Planning Board recognized its obligation to apply the land use ordinance impartially, and identified the applicable provision as section 5(D), governing omitted uses: 11 , *713 [Poland Spring’s] application has clearly

In Re Dunleavy

838 A.2d 338 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 22, 2003

We conclude that his solicitation of Clean Elections Fund qualifying contributions violated Canon 5(A)(1)(e). 2. … During that time, Judge Dunleavy served as Aroostook County Probate Judge and continues to do so. [6] To qualify for public funding, the Clean Elections Act requires a State Senate candidate to collect 150 five-dollar qualifying

State of Maine v. David M. Wyman

107 A.3d 1134 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 15, 2015

Admission of the Cell Phone Billing Records [¶20] David argues that the cell phone billing records should have been excluded pursuant to Maine Rule of Evidence 403.4 He contends that the Verizon employee was not qualified … balancing the probative value of proffered evidence against the prejudicial, misleading, or confusing effects of such evidence, and will vacate the admission of evidence over a Rule 403 objection only if the trial court clearly

State of Maine v. Bradley Williams

2020 ME 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 2020

P. 12(a)(2) (“A qualified Justice may participate in a decision even though not present at oral argument.”). ** Although Justice Hjelm participated in the appeal, he retired before this opinion was certified. … . [¶17] The record does not clearly establish that the issues litigated at the prior PFH hearing were the same as the issues litigated at the trial here, and the State had neither a fair opportunity nor an incentive

State of Maine v. Bradley Williams

2020 ME 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 2020

P. 12(a)(2) (“A qualified Justice may participate in a decision even though not present at oral argument.”). ** Although Justice Hjelm participated in the appeal, he retired before this opinion was certified. … . [¶17] The record does not clearly establish that the issues litigated at the prior PFH hearing were the same as the issues litigated at the trial here, and the State had neither a fair opportunity nor an incentive

State v. Robinson

773 A.2d 445 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 21, 2001

Thus, a crucial question in determining whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance is “how long the state of excitement may be found to last.” … The State established that Murano was still “very, very upset” at the time that she made the statement. Murano appeared terrified and was still sobbing from the events of that night.

State v. May

608 A.2d 772 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 3, 1992

We are mindful in so doing that the State bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant abandoned his wallet. See State v. Philbrick, 436 A.2d at 854 . … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Cooper v. Fidelity Trust Co.

134 Me. 40 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 7, 1935

If it can not qualify as a savings deposit in fact, it remains a general debt or obligation of the bank. … This, if clearly established, is a reason for reforming the certificates, which as they stand bear a contrary import. Johnson v. Burnham, supra.

State v. Fin & Feather Club

316 A.2d 351 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 21, 1974

Nor did the qualifying phrase “subject to” connote a reservation or retention of property rights by Great Northern. Renner v. Crisman, 80 S.D. 532 , 127 N.W.2d 717, 721 (1964). … The new leases specifically and clearly restricted the rights of the lessees in the use of the land, *356 so as to comport with Percival P. Baxter’s intention that the land remain in its natural state.

Goldstein v. Sklar

216 A.2d 298 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 18, 1966

Our Court there said: “Such statements by the plaintiff were clearly inadmissible as evidence of the facts stated.” … The evidence, from this viewpoint alone, was clearly prejudicial hearsay and inadmissible. The authorities are collected in 31A C.J.S. Evidence §§ 241 and 246b; 20 Am.Jur.

Dow v. Bailey

146 Me. 45 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 15, 1950

He survived the testator, qualified as one of his executors and trustees, and received the interest payable under the provisions of subparagraph (c) from a date not disclosed, when such payment was commenced, until December … This indicates clearly that the issue raised in the present case must be resolved by considering the will as an entirety and determining the intention of the testator therefrom.

Competitive Energy Services LLC v. Public Utilities Commission

818 A.2d 1039 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 2003

Thus, we find it appropriate to interpret the Act as not prohibiting the creation of an additional competitor when, as here, the language of the Act does not clearly mandate such a result. [¶ 15] When reviewing an agency’ … A preexisting marketing affiliate would have an established market share, and its established operations would not have been subject to scrutiny and pri- or approval by the Commission.

Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co. v. Preachers' Aid Society of the Methodist Church

244 A.2d 558 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 31, 1968

Goulding, a resident of Southwest Harbor, Maine, established an inter vivos trust of most of her property. … a present donative intent in the set-tlor to benefit them, as the evidence clearly reveals that no close association existed between Mrs.

Lydon v. Sprinkler Services

841 A.2d 793 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 12, 2004

IMEs must be “the most qualified and ... highly experienced and competent in their specific fields of expertise.” Id. § 312(1). When opposing parties agree on the selection of the IME, the IME’s opinion is binding. … As one legislator remarked: [T]he new law clearly does establish the IME and does establish the criteria for the IME so that it may not be rebutted other than by clear and convincing evidence.

Strout v. Polakewich

139 Me. 134 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 4, 1942

L. says “clearly and necessarily requires.” … Legislative intent to limit its effectiveness within the former and narrow^ field is shown by the *145 qualifying word “knowingly.” The majority opinion reads that word out of the statute.

Cutter v. Burroughs

100 Me. 379 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 6, 1905

On the first Tuesday of April, 1893, Celina Purington was appointed and qualified as guardian of Marie J. … The mother’s deep solicitude for, this single purpose is clearly made manifest from the whole tenor of the will.

Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

382 A.2d 302 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 9, 1978

depreciation charged as an expense on all qualifying property acquired after December 31, 1969. … Apart from its constitutional overtones, the contention of unauthorized delay clearly concerns a matter other than the justness and reasonableness of a rate, as we have previously construed that phrase. Id.

State of Maine v. George Jaime

111 A.3d 1050 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 10, 2015

In so doing, Jaime  11 implied that Ted had fabricated the details about the murder on July 11 to secure a deal that immunized him from any … Although a reasonable connection is required, “[a] defendant may establish a reasonable connection between the alternative suspect and the crime without clearly linking the alternative suspect to the crime.”

Inhabitants of Town of Bethel v. INHABITANTS, ETC.

151 Me. 318 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 17, 1955

On the contrary, I find that the family situation quite clearly indicated that aid was required and that the amount of aid furnished was reasonable.” … Mental Capacity of Brown — Exception 8 The issue is whether there was any evidence to warrant the necessary finding that Brown had sufficient mental capacity to qualify as a pauper under Section 2, supra.

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. Environmental Improvement Commission

307 A.2d 1 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 4, 1973

“An article may be an export and immune from a tax long before or long after it reaches the port. … But when the tax is on activities connected with the export or import the range of immunity cannot be so wide.” 340 U.S. at 514—515, 71 S.Ct. at 449 .