Case law

Moulton v. Scully

111 Me. 428 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 26, 1914

The relator was elected and qualified as sheriff of Cumberland County for the term of office beginning January 1, 1913. … We think the causes stated in the case before us come clearly within the reason here stated.

Mary Walton v. David C. Ireland Jr.

104 A.3d 883 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 25, 2014

Ireland also contends that the court’s finding of abuse was clearly erroneous. We affirm. I. … diagnosis or treatment.7 In the complete absence of such evidence, the foundation for Rule 803(4) is lacking, and the statements do not qualify as exceptions to the hearsay rule.

State v. Fortune

34 A.3d 1115 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 13, 2011

Burke, 38 Me. 574, 575-76 (1854). [¶ 29] Griffin may have been qualified by Black v. … However, we cannot say that it was error, let alone obvious error, for the trial court to present the verdict form and instruct as it did. [¶ 33] The evidence readily establishes that Fortune and Hylton went to the residence

Kane v. Commissioner of Department of Health & Human Services

960 A.2d 1196 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 11, 2008

. §§ 4001 to 4099-C (2007), established the “out-of-home abuse and neglect investigating team” and authorized it to investigate reports of suspected abuse and neglect of children placed with those subject to licen-sure, such … Id. *1201 [¶ 16] The policy manual definition of “abuse or neglect” that qualifies for a “substantiated” finding did not directly govern the 2004 events at issue here.

Your Home, Inc. v. City of Portland

483 A.2d 735 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 5, 1984

Your Home, Inc., proposes to establish a “mobile home park” on land in an R-3 residential zone abutting Warren Avenue and Farnham Street in the city of Portland. … Without changing its plans so as to construct stick-built homes, Your Home could not have brought its units any more clearly within the ordinance at this time.

Washington Ice Co. v. Webster

68 Me. 449 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 11, 1878

When the defendant prevails on such an issue, his right to a judgment for a return is as clearly established as his right to a judgment for costs.” In Quincy v. … It is not necessary in order to qualify one to give an opinion as to values, that his information should be of such a direct character as would make it competent in itself as primary evidence.”

Alexander v. Sharpe

245 A.2d 279 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 15, 1968

Petitioner’s accusation of prejudice was clearly an act of contempt of court. … Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses, * * * But the penalty authorized for a particular crime is of major relevance in determining whether

Rice v. McLarren

42 Me. 157 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1856

They must, by the well established rules of law, be conclusively presumed to have understood and intended whatever its legal construction indicates. … There seems to be nothing in the case to qualify this delivery. If the delivery had been upon conditions not performed, the property might not have passed. Hussey & al. v. Thornton & al. 4 Mass. 405 ; Smith v.

State v. Howard

405 A.2d 206 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 24, 1979

That rule requires the proponent of the document to produce the custodian of the record, “or other qualified witness,” to testify that the offered document was “kept in the course of a regular conducted business,” and that … Clearly, the error below did not amount to a violation of the defendant’s sixth amendment right of confrontation. United States v.

Barstow v. Tetlow

115 Me. 96 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 6, 1916

Crane, were appointed and qualified. At the time of Mrs. Kent’s death the amount to the credit of said bank deposit was $6,188.90, which Ellen J. Tetlow thereafter drew out of said bank claiming title thereto. … We are therefore clearly of the opinion that Mrs. Tetlow’s claim of title to the fund in question under a gift causa mortis is not sustained by sufficient proof.

State v. Eastman

691 A.2d 179 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 12, 1997

The court also refused to permit defendant to ask the officer about the margin of error of the intoxñyzer machine in the absence of some foundation that he was qualified to testify about that subject. … Collins, 297 A.2d 620, 627 (Me.1972) (when an accused claims his statements are involuntary, then the State must establish voluntariness by proof beyond a reasonable doubt). 5 .

In Re Gardner

534 A.2d 947 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 3, 1987

That court stated: A competent person clearly has the ability to exercise the right to refuse medical treatment. … Lynn ed. 1986). [1] For example, it is common for states to require immunization of students in the interest of public health. See 20-A M.R.S.A. §§ 6352-6359 (Supp.1987).

McKenzie v. Maine Employment Security Commission

453 A.2d 505 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 8, 1982

His earned wages together with the workers’ compensation payments he had received factually qualified him for benefits under the “base wages” requirement of Section 1192(5). … A claimant must establish eligibility for each week for which benefits are claimed. Luskin v. Department of Employment, 100 Idaho 584 , 602 P.2d 947, 949 (1979).

Angela M. Smith, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Peter A. Smith v. John R. Henson

2025 ME 55 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 26, 2025

The second clause of the sentence clearly and explicitly established the decedent’s estate as the proper recipient of the second and third of those forms of damages. Id. … survival cause of action is “separate and distinct” from a wrongful death action). 18 results” because the law allowed for recovery of significant damages for pecuniary injuries if the decedent were survived by people qualified

Public Advocate v. Public Utilities Commission

1998 Me. 218 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 28, 1998

PROHIBITIONS ON RETROACTIVE RATEMAKING [¶7] The Public Advocate contends that prior case law clearly establishes that the Commission lacks authority to adjust rates pursuant to the tracking mechanism. … Commission establishes the “temporary rates.”

Bailey v. Merchants' Insurance

110 Me. 348 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 5, 1913

The case is clearly distinguishable from Waterman v. Dockray, 78 Maine, 139, and Hodge v. Hodge, 90 Maine, 505. … While it is undoubtedly true that “no proposition of law is bet *358 ter established than that an executor has an absolute control over all the personal effects of his testator” (Peterson v. Bank, 32 N.

State of Maine v. Rochelle Gleason

2025 ME 52 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 17, 2025

“A testimonial statement is ‘typically a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.’” State v. … “In determining whether an out-of-court statement qualifies as testimonial, courts look at whether the primary purpose of the statement is to establish or prove a fact to be used later in trial.”

Dunning v. Finson

46 Me. 546 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1859

This qualifies the general provision in the Act of 1853, which gave the process against any disseizor, whether he had any claims for improvement or not. … The remedy there is applicable only where the relation of landlord and tenant exists, and is clearly established. It is based on that relation entirely. In the case before cited from the 8th of Cushing, (Dakin v.

State Ex Rel. Brennan v. RD Realty Corporation

349 A.2d 201 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 18, 1975

The Legislature’s intention, the appellant says to quote from its brief, is clear “that in the case of projects for which municipal approval was not required only those actually completed by September 23, 1971, would qualify … Authorities agree “the doctrine of primary jurisdiction” was established in Texas & Pac. Railway v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 , 27 S.Ct. 350 , 51 L. Ed. 553 (1907).

Seacoast Hangar Condominium II Ass'n v. Martel

775 A.2d 1166 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 18, 2001

. § 702(3) (1981) (“Each director shall hold office for the term to which he is elected or appointed and until his successor shall have been elected or appointed and qualified.”). … See Thurber, 487 A.2d at 635 (“where a mandatory reading would result in no ... internal inconsistency, and where the attorney’s fees are clearly and unambiguously provided for ...