Case law

Briand v. Lavigne

223 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 14, 2002

immunity. … This recommended decision also renders moot Briand’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 7) on the issue of qualified immunity.

Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River

922 A.2d 484 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 29, 2007

Page Keeton ed., 5th ed.1984) (“specific acts of negligence are often clearly ‘operational,’ so that the government is readily held liable for ... negligent maintenance of property”). [¶ 23] The essential question with respect … officials could be immune from suit for allowing the persistence of hazardous conditions on *491 property that they are required to maintain. 2 [¶24] Here, the undisputed facts establish that although the Town required Bell

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.

SMALL v. SMITH

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 10, 2025

immunity from liability unless (1) they violated a federal right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established.” … at 66, I start with the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. The “clearly established” prong includes two related aspects.

Roberts v. State of Maine Department of Public Safety

Superior Court of Maine · Oct 4, 2023

Without particularized binding authority or a robust consensus of persuasive authority to clearly establish the right, Roberts has not overcome Thomas’s invocation of qualified immunity. … ). 26 Roberts has met neither requirement to show “clearly established law” for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

Camp Emoh Associates v. Inhabitants of Lyman

132 Me. 67 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 4, 1933

The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff is a “benevolent and charitable institution incorporated by the state.” … The burden was on the plaintiff to establish its right to exemption. Bangor v. Masonic Lodge, 73 Me., 428.

State v. Papalos

150 Me. 370 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 11, 1955

Zahn ... an executive officer to wit: the duly appointed and qualified Chairman of the State Liquor Commission of the State of Maine, and the said Bernard T. … Sahagian, in testifying at the trial, believed he had gained immunity.

State v. Small

411 A.2d 682 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 27, 1980

Garland ultimately admitted his involvement to fire inspectors and was given immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony against defendant. In defense, Small blamed the fire entirely on Garland. … Questioning by the court established that “smudge sale” is “a common slang term” that is “used around the community in which [Strickland] operate[s].”

Bowen v. Department of Human Services

606 A.2d 1051 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 17, 1992

In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge pursuant to Title VII 1 Bowen must show that (1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) her employer thereafter subjected her to adverse employment action … Bowen argues that this conduct clearly exceeded the scope of Bartley’s discretionary duties and therefore section 8111 does not protect her.

GLADU v. MAGNUSSON

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 26, 2025

Stanley argues qualified immunity shields him from liability. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

McCullough v. Visiting Nurse Service of Southern Maine, Inc.

691 A.2d 1201 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 31, 1997

See also Restatement (Second) of TORTS § 581A cmt. f (1977) (It is not necessary to establish the literal truth of the precise statement made. … law....” [¶ 14] The foregoing statutory language provides VNS with immunity from civil liability for fulfilling its obligation to report McCullough’s termination to the board.

Potter v. Frank

106 Me. 165 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1909

The evidence tending to prove a mutual mistake does not meet the requirements of that high degree of proof necessary to establish the facts in this class of cases. … They undoubtedly thought they were signing a document that would qualify the defendant, William H.

State of Me. v. Department of Navy

702 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 23, 1988

Clearly, if Congress may effectively waive sovereign immunity to each individual requirement of state law, which it indisputably can, then it can, with equal effectiveness, waive sovereign immunity to a generic or broad category … immunity.

Guardianship of Jewel M.

989 A.2d 726 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 9, 2010

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) no competent evidence supporting the finding exists in the record; (2) the fact-finder clearly misapprehends the meaning of the evidence; or (3) the force and effect of the … This evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the father had not found a qualified therapist for Jewel in his area at the time of the hearing.

LUCAS

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 1, 2026

The qualified immunity doctrine shields law enforcement officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In effect, unless the law was clearly established at the time, the qualified immunity doctrine holds that it is not fair to infer or presume that the defendants would have understood that their actions or inactions resulted

Carleton v. Fletcher

109 Me. 576 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 20, 1912

It is 'claimed in behalf of the plaintiff that these facts and circumstances are deafly established by the evidence. … It was a question which they were peculiarly qualified to determine, and their decision does not appear to be so manifestly wrong as to require the interposition of the Law Court to set it aside.

Foss v. Maine Turnpike Authority

309 A.2d 339 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 10, 1973

frequently made to distinguish between nuisance and negligence, for example, is based upon an entirely mistaken emphasis upon what the defendant has done rather than the result which has followed, and forgets completely the well established … We believe that the answer to this question is clearly in the negative. In Michaud v.

State v. Beathem

482 A.2d 860 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 17, 1984

Factual findings of trial courts may be overturned on review only if they are clearly erroneous. E.g., State v. Adams, 457 A.2d 416, 417 (1983). … The prosecutor directed the witness to answer and in the presence of the jury stated “if he needs immunity I’ll grant him immunity right now.”

Harvey F. Gamage, Shipbuilder, Inc. v. Halperin

359 A.2d 72 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 14, 1976

within the contemplation of the Legislature when L.D. 1273 was enacted that such part of the tax imposed by Section 3 as was added to selling prices under the schedule established by Section 5 was to be paid to retailers … The Constitution of the United States neither mentions nor alludes to immunity of the United States government.

Forrest Associates v. Passamaquoddy Tribe

760 A.2d 1041 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 3, 2000

Accordingly, Forrest is not entitled to a recovery in quantum meruit because it cannot establish a reasonable expectation of payment. [¶ 13] In addition, Maine law provides that the Tribe enjoys the same privileges and immunities … Competent evidence exists in the record to support these factual determinations, and thus they are not clearly erroneous.