Case law

Curran v. Portland Superintending School Committee

435 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 18, 1977

Plaintiff’s claim of employment discrimination under all three counts of the complaint clearly meets the second requirement of Data Processing. See also Parts II and III, infra. … immunity to which they are entitled under Wood v.

Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Group

33 A.3d 410 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 13, 2011

she could establish that she did not work under the third-party employer’s control. … In this case, it is established that Doughty worked under Poland Spring’s control. .

Donovan v. Fowle

762 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 20, 2011

The Civil Rights Act affords subject matter jurisdiction over Donovan’s claims and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not clearly bar exercise of that jurisdiction. … Maine, 787 F.2d 776, 777 (1st Cir.1986) (“Imbler rejected a suggestion that the prosecutor’s immunity be reduced to a qualified one when he is alleged to have withheld exculpatory information.”).

State v. Christen

976 A.2d 980 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 28, 2009

The plain language of the statute clearly creates an affirmative defense, but permits its application only to certain charges, and trafficking is not one of them. … The second charge required proof of actual trafficking, and the State had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that element. See id. § 1103(1-A)(H). 5 . Because the parties had stipulated prior to

Michael Fortin v. Jacob Titcomb

60 A.3d 765 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 29, 2013

A police officer’s conduct is typically entitled to discretionary function immunity unless the “egregious conduct clearly exceeded, as a matter of law, the scope of any discretion he could have possessed in his official … Maine law provides immunity to a police officer unless the officer’s conduct was so egregious that it clearly exceeded the scope of any discretion an officer could have possessed in his or her capacity as

Jody L. Savage v. Maine Pretrial Services, Inc.

58 A.3d 1138 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 17, 2013

Section 2423-D, entitled “Authorized conduct by a visiting qualifying patient,” authorizes qualifying patients from another state in which the medical use of marijuana is permitted to engage in that conduct in Maine if … The express authorizations to use, prescribe, administer, or dispense marijuana pursuant to chapter 558-C thus create immunity from prosecution or other sanctions by state government. [¶18] The conduct of applying

Johnson v. Maine Central Railroad

141 Me. 38 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 14, 1944

Travelers from other States who are mot familiar with the territory are not immune from the operation of this rule. … Such testimony is clearly inadmissible under our evidentiary rules.

Couturier v. Penobscot Indian Nation

544 A.2d 306 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 13, 1988

the Penobscot Nation does not fall within the definition of “governmental entity” for purposes of the Maine Tort Claims Act. 3 However, the language of the federal and state legislation dealing with the Pe-nobscot Nation clearly … emphasis added). 4 That section 6206(2) does not refer specifically to the Maine Tort Claims Act is in keeping with the purpose of the Act to Implement the Maine Indian Claims Settlement, to serve as a basic, organic document establishing

State of Maine v. Chad H. Tozier

115 A.3d 1240 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 7, 2015

“[Qualified witness” is not defined in the statute. [¶ 9] The trial court interpreted “qualified witness” to be synonymous with “expert witness.” … The Court stated that “[f]o-rensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation” and that “[a] forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure — or have an incentive

Eric Badler v. University of Maine System

2022 ME 40 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 28, 2022

General Public [¶17] The Court first states that the industrial kitchen mixer that injured Badler does not fall under the exception to immunity established in section 8104-A(1)(G), in part because the mixer “is unlikely … Because the record here demonstrates that the University has a buffer liability insurance policy, Badler should have the opportunity to recover damages for his injury, a result the Legislature clearly intended when it

Nadeau v. State

395 A.2d 107 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 1, 1978

Moreover, all legislative acts are clothed with an armor of constitutionality particularly resilient where such acts follow a long-settled and well-established practice of the Legislature. State v. … State, supra, the State waived sovereign immunity where a unique factual pattern was presented.

Moore v. City of Lewiston

596 A.2d 612 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 7, 1991

Supreme Court’s holding in DeShaney , as some courts 12 have found, nothing in the record before us would support a finding that the defendants affirmatively deprived Moore of a clearly established federal civil right. … Personal Immunity for employees; procedure 1. Immunity.

ASHBY

District Court, D. Maine · May 4, 2026

The qualified immunity inquiry has two components: “whether the facts alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and “if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established’” at the time of the alleged … As explained above, whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity depends upon “whether the right was ‘clearly established’” at the time of the alleged violation.

Black v. Solmitz

409 A.2d 634 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 18, 1979

Parent and Child (1) A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. (2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission that … The issue in Downs , as here, was not whether a new cause of action should be created but whether a blanket rule of immunity should be invoked to bar a claim for violated duty otherwise clearly maintainable under existing

Hardy v. Emery

241 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 23, 2003

Viability of Emery’s Assertion of Qualified Immunity Emery makes a rather indecisive argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity at this phase of the litigation. (Mot. Summ. J. at 8, 11-12; see also Answer at 4.) … “The second question,” with respect to qualified immunity, “is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id.

Karen S. Klein v. University of Maine System

271 A.3d 777 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 15, 2022

purpose other than parking. [¶14] The parking lot outside of Holmes Hall and Fogler Library is not an appurtenance as that term is used in section 8104-A(2) because it meets none of the requirements necessary to qualify … After we defined appurtenance in Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 11, 850 A.2d 325, a majority of this Court later described that case as “apply[ing] the well-established definition of a fixture to determine whether an object was

Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co., Inc. v. Dravo Corp.

436 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 9, 1977

Lyon, qualified as an expert in the engineering and construction industry. … it”; (3) such contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks the immunity from liability; (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity. 224

Barstow v. Kennebec County Jail

115 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 22, 2000

immunity). … immunity.

State v. McEachern

431 A.2d 39 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 25, 1981

Trial evidence established that Frederick’s death was caused by a .22 semiautomatic rifle owned *41 by defendant. … Contrary to defendant’s claim on appeal, we find no error in that refusal since whatever was the significance of the Attorney General’s letter, it clearly was not a grant of immunity from prosecution and therefore the instruction

Gross v. Griffin

800 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 6, 2011

If that third line of defense falters, the Estate raises qualified immunity as a defense, observing that the First Amended Complaint does not connect Mr. … established for purposes of the qualified immunity defense.