Case law

Moody v. City of Lewiston

213 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 31, 2002

Defendant Landry would also be entitled to qualified immunity if a Fourth Amendment violation on his part was even suggested by the uncontroverted facts in the case. … In order to defeat that immunity, Plaintiff is required to demonstrate that *4 his “clearly established” rights have been violated and that “a reasonable officer situated in the same circumstances should have understood that

Krennerich v. Inhabitants of the Town of Bristol

943 F. Supp. 1345 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 24, 1996

To sustain a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish: (1) [T]hat he is a disabled person within the meaning of the Act; (2) that [he is qualified, that is,] with or without reasonable accommodation he is able to perform … Qualified Employee Defendants contend that Mr.

United States v. Maine Lobstermen's Association

160 F. Supp. 115 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 20, 1957

This representation by the defendant is not true, and the claimed immunity is clearly without any legal basis. … immunity must be, and hereby is, denied.

Brewer v. Roosevelt Motor Lodge

295 A.2d 647 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 17, 1972

A review of the evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff did not bring herself within the rule which would permit recovery. She failed to prove actionable negligence. … The legislative language is clearly to the contrary.

Gomes v. University of Maine System

365 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Under well established law, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for official action unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right; and, (2) the law to this effect was *38 … “clearly established” under then-existing law so that a reasonable official would have known that his behavior was unlawful.

Chris Calnan v. Sam Hurley

2024 ME 30 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 25, 2024

Per the preamble in section 88, “the [EMS] Board, as established by [5 M.R.S. § 12004-A(15) (2024)], is responsible for the emergency medical services program.” … The statute unambiguously delegates to the EMS Board rulemaking authority regarding qualifications of EMS personnel, and its statutory purpose clearly vests the EMS Board with the responsibility of creating standards and

State v. Cormier

838 A.2d 356 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 23, 2003

Ricci could testify that the injuries of the victim were inconsistent with consensual intercourse, therefore, was not clearly erroneous. 2. … The Immunized Witness Instruction [¶ 19] Cormier’s contention that the jury should have been instructed that Kelly, who testified for the State, had been granted immunity is without merit.

State v. Warren

312 A.2d 535 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 3, 1973

Vickers’ refusal to answer the question which suggested that he was involved in that “activity”, on the ground that his answer “may tend to incriminate me” would clearly suggest to the jury that, if he answered truthfully … Kevin Vickers was called in the hearing of this cause last summer, was granted immunity, and refused to testify, as the record will so show.

Onat v. Penobscot Bay Medical Center

574 A.2d 872 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 4, 1990

Accordingly, we do not reach the defendants’ cross-appeal on the question of qualified versus absolute immunity under 24 M.R.S.A. § 2511 (1985) or 32 M.R.S.A. § 3293 (1975). … This conditional privilege immunizes publication of Onat’s alleged shortcomings from legal claims absent abuse of this privilege through express or implied malice. See Saunders v.

Theriault v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE

353 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 30, 2004

Nye adopts the UMS defendants’ arguments on relevant issues and contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. Defendants [sic] Ken Nye’s Motion for Summary Judgment, etc. … There are two prongs to qualified immunity analysis. First, the court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Green v. State Tax Assessor

562 A.2d 1217 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 17, 1989

of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental .... … [and] it also effects a clearly sufficient State purpose, viz, ‘funding no more than that share of tax benefits that is attributable to income earned within, and therefore taxable by Maine.”

State v. Troiano

421 A.2d 41 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 15, 1980

Having failed to establish any need for immunity, the defendant cannot now claim that the presiding Justice’s refusal to grant, or to compel the State to grant, reciprocal immunity deprived him of any testimony, much less … The presiding Justice clearly singled out the testimony of immunized witnesses for cautious evaluation. His failure to instruct in the exact language requested was not error.

Nancy J. McCandless v. John Ramsey

2019 ME 111 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 11, 2019

P. 12(a)(2) (“A qualified justice may participate in a decision even though not present at oral argument.”). 2 [¶2] Nancy J. … the summary judgment record to determine whether there is no genuine issue of material fact and the Ramseys have established the applicability of the immunity provision as a matter of law, see M.R.

PIKE v. BUDD

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 14, 2023

The second, “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis has, in turn, two aspects. … A government official who is not contravening clearly established law is entitled to qualified immunity. Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015).

Inhabitants of Orono v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Society

105 Me. 214 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 2, 1909

Clearly the case at bar does not fall within this exception to the general rule. This is not a tax against the University of Maine, which is conceded to be a literary and scientific institution. … The defendant corporation is entitled neither to exemption as an educational or scientific institution, nor immunity as an agency or instrumentality of the State.

McKenney v. Labbe

588 A.2d 313 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 1, 1991

there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” … Because the defendants met their burden of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact in relation to their entitlement to immunity, see Saltonstall v.

Reid v. Town of Mount Vernon

932 A.2d 539 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 4, 2007

Statutory exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed. … Sullivan & Merritt, Inc., we held that an indemnification clause contained in a contract, which clearly and specifically contained a waiver of immunity, could be sufficient to waive the immunity enjoyed by employers under

United States v. Gianakakis

671 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 15, 1987

The testimony established several other points with regard to defendant’s “cooperation” following the Portland meeting. … The evidence established that sometime in 1985 the defendant and Sears travelled to Stern’s office in Bangor for a meeting.

Grenier Ex Rel. Grenier v. Kennebec County

733 F. Supp. 455 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 21, 1990

establishes enforceable rights; and (3) the plaintiff’s *458 claim for injunctive relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 4 The plaintiff contends that the State of Maine waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in … The plaintiff’s second argument is that the JJDPA 7 overrides the states’ Eleventh *459 Amendment immunity and establishes a private cause of action or, alternatively, rights which are enforceable through § 1983.

State v. Vickers

309 A.2d 325 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 11, 1973

This power of government to compel persons to give testimonial evidence is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Kastigar v. United States, supra . … We are clearly not confronted with such a situation in the present case. We shall withhold judgment on such a problem until we are faced with it. The entry will be Appeal denied.