Case law

Guardianship of Boyle

674 A.2d 912 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 25, 1996

While competent, Boyle clearly expressed her wishes to avoid treatment, as did the patients in Gardner and Swan. … Despite the potentially severe side effects associated with the administration of psychotropic drugs, Boyle’s right to refuse them is qualified.

State v. True

438 A.2d 460 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 17, 1981

Thus, the court established a basis for admission, under the King principle, of the fact that Lona had made a complaint. … Lona’s complaint does not qualify as an admissible excited utterance.

Thursby v. State

223 A.2d 61 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 27, 1966

The present petition however qualifies within the statutory concept of an action pending at the time of the repeal so as not to be affected thereby. … The record in the trial court clearly establishes that at no time did Thursby, his attorney, the State’s counsel, the State’s expert psychiatrist who testified for the defendant, nor anyone else, claim or suggest that Thursby

Robert F. Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport

2019 ME 151 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 3, 2019

This testimony clearly satisfies the standards of M.R. Evid. 401. … Furthermore, the court’s conclusion that the surveyor was qualified to testify as an expert and give his opinion—regarding matters other than legal conclusions—is well supported by the record: he has been licensed in Maine

Franklin Bank v. Steward

37 Me. 519 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1853

Hastings, 10 Vesey, 122, is often cited as a leading case, establishing the strict doctrine contended for by the plaintiffs in the case at bar. … The acts sought to be established by the declarations of the supposed agent, were performed by the defendant himself.

Supruniuk v. Petriw

334 A.2d 857 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 4, 1975

The test then would be whether the Justice’s finding that the Plaintiff was enti-tied to specific performance was clearly erroneous. M.R.C.P., Rule 52(a). … It appears to us that the exhibit did not qualify for admission. The entry will be: Appeal sustained. Remanded to the Superior Court for retrial. All Justices concurring. 1 . “(d) Advisory Jury and Trial by Consent.

Robert F. Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport

2019 ME 151 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 3, 2019

This testimony clearly satisfies the standards of M.R. Evid. 401. … Furthermore, the court’s conclusion that the surveyor was qualified to testify as an expert and give his opinion—regarding matters other than legal conclusions—is well supported by the record: he has been licensed in Maine

State v. Bussiere

155 Me. 331 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 1, 1959

If he was found properly qualified, he would be paid the award on the platform the following Thursday night upon *333 properly identifying himself to the judges who were chosen at that time. … Courts in some jurisdictions have held that any consideration necessary to establish a simple contract is sufficient. Among the decisions so holding are the following: Commonwealth v.

Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court Given Under the Provisions of Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution Questions Propounded by the Governor and the Executive Council on November 27, 1956 Answered December 11, 1956

152 Me. 219 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1956

The intention of the voter was clearly expressed. Further, and this is a fact of importance, the ballots in dispute were not challenged at the polls. … The object of election laws is to secure *227 the rights of duly qualified voters, and not to defeat them.’

Millien v. Colby College

874 A.2d 397 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 9, 2005

The possibility of subsequent appellate review by the Appeals Board is suggested by the student handbook as well as by Colby’s established practices. … Accordingly, a decision of the Dean’s Hearing Board qualifies as "any case” and is appealable under the Appeals Board procedures. 5 .

State v. Melanson

152 Me. 168 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 15, 1956

Violators are not to go free for such an unsubstantial reason, nor do they obtain from such an error by an officer an "immunity bath", to use a phrase from State v. Boynton, 143 Me. 313, 322 , 62 A.2d 182, 188 . … This summary action logically follows the waiver by the respondent of his right to plead over and have trial upon the merits as Inness clearly indicates. The opinion in Stowell v.

Ward v. School Directors, Maine School Administrative District No. 56

384 A.2d 681 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 28, 1978

Qualified. If still qualified to perform the duties of such position, be restored to such position or to a position of like seniority, status and pay; . . . .” … On October 6, however, the plaintiff took action that clearly constituted reporting for duty. He wrote the superintendent from a Searsport address asking reemployment.

State v. Warner

237 A.2d 150 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 26, 1967

State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) was established. … The witness was qualified in the field of repairing and estimating the cost of repairing motor vehicles.

Proprietors of Kennebec Purchase v. Laboree

2 Me. 275 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1823

Springer expressly recognizes and establishes this distinction. Parsons C. … Springer, it has not established, nor was it intended to establish any new principle.

Holland v. Sebunya

759 A.2d 205 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 17, 2000

Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of the rights, privileges and immunities secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States. … The record, however, does not appear to clearly support this proposition as will be discussed in more detail below.

State of Maine v. Dan Brown

95 A.3d 82 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 17, 2014

Instead, Brown argues that he qualifies as a “milk producer” pursuant to 7 M.R.S. § 2900(10) (2013) because he “operates a dairy farm and provides, sells or offers milk or milk products for sale,” and that the terms “milk … Because a summary judgment decides a question as a matter of law, “Rule 52(a) clearly provides no right to findings of fact in summary judgment decisions.” Jackson v. Casco N.

Borders v. Boston & Maine Railroad

115 Me. 207 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 23, 1916

R., 87 Maine, 540, yet, because the inference of negligence in such cases is so indisputable, the rule is firmly established in this State and elsewhere that it is as a matter of law negligence per se for one to attempt to … Except for the matter of the.absent flagman, it would clearly be a case of negligence on his part which would bar his right to recover.

Hersum v. Kennebec Water District

151 Me. 256 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 19, 1955

Under the circumstances which then existed, the statement was clearly a part of the res gestae. The case of Barnes v. Rumford, 96 Me. 315 , is clearly distinguishable. … Statements which conform to these requirements and which in some way elucidate, qualify, or characterize the act in question are admissible in evidence as a distinct and separate exception to the hearsay rule.”

Stone v. Curtis

115 Me. 63 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 25, 1916

The plaintiff upon qualifying as administrator acted upon information received from Charles G. … Viele to him and clearly shows a loan of two thousand dollars from Annie V. Curtis to the defendant in 1898, and that the transaction was not*a gift, for the defendant nowhere in the letter claims that it was.”

Johnson v. Libby

111 Me. 204 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 29, 1913

We think that conclusion rests in sound reasoning and well established principles. … It was clearly so intended by the Justice who signed it. Moreover, it is expressly provided by sec. 86, ch. 48, R. S., amended by chapter 19, P.