Case law

In Re Estate of Burdon-Muller

456 A.2d 1266 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 4, 1983

See, e.g., IRC § 664(d)(2)(A)-(C). 6 The probate judge, concluding that Bur-don-Muller “clearly” intended to establish a five percent unitrust, accepted completely the will reformation proposed by Burdon-Muller’s executors … The IRS requires that a qualifying charitable remainder unitrust specify a fixed unitrust percent; clearly, the trustee cannot himself alter Burdon-Muller’s will to create such a fixed figure.

Gilman v. Jack

148 Me. 171 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 4, 1952

On the other hand, the right of entire freedom of action on his part, as such director, is clearly established. … It is only when the purpose is not clearly expressed that we have the right to use the usual outside aids to determine it. Millett v. Marston, 62 Me. 477 .

Town of Burlington v. Hospital Administrative District No. 1

769 A.2d 857 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 12, 2001

HAD # 1 is governed by a board of directors elected by the qualified voters of the towns in the district. Upon dissolution of the district, its assets revert to the towns. … In News & Observer Publishing, county commissioners created the Wake County Hospital Authority to establish a hospital.

Marcello v. Maine

464 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 13, 2006

The burden falls on the plaintiff “clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Dubois v. … As the Supreme Court has explained, “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court

FRENCH v. MERRILL

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 4, 2020

Defendants also contend that qualified immunity applies because a reasonable police officer would not have known that their conduct violated clearly established constitutional law. … establishes’ law for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis”).

Carey Ex Rel. Carey v. Maine School Administrative District 17

754 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 18, 1990

Congress clearly intended, when it enacted this section of the EAHCA, to establish a strong preference, if not an absolute mandate, for the maintenance of the status quo until a final decision is reached regarding the child … The question is thereby raised whether all of section 8111(1), or just section 8111(1)(E), is qualified by the following phrase contained in section 8111(1)(H): "... provided that such immunity shall not exist in any case

Sullivan v. Republic of Cuba

289 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 2, 2017

LEGAL BACKGROUND The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which declares that "a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided" by certain … First, a district court errs when it relies on a clearly erroneous factual finding. For example, in Vera v.

Alden v. State

715 A.2d 172 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 4, 1998

If Congress does not have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity with respect to federal causes of action brought in federal courts, as the Seminole Tribe case clearly held, then that limitation on congressional power … This provision clearly expresses a congressional intent to abrogate the states' immunity from suit.

Cole v. Chandler

752 A.2d 1189 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 26, 2000

He did not establish a high degree of awareness of probable falsity or serious doubt as to the truth of the statement. See Rippett v. … Leading Edge Products, Inc., 44 F.3d 308, 315 (5th Cir.1995) (noting that an inadequate investigation by itself was clearly not sufficient to show actual malice). Nor did he show spite or ill will.

GRIFFIN v. UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 16, 2023

As to the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, the Court may also decide the merits of Griffin’s constitutional claim prior to reaching the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … established right, Cummings is entitled to qualified immunity.

Lynch v. Christie

797 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 12, 2011

Alternatively, in Morse Brothers, the Maine Law Court said that the trial court’s legal conclusion “must be supported by pleadings and evidence that demonstrate clearly that [the petitioning activity] was ‘devoid of any reasonable … (Compare the defense of qualified immunity in federal court, which can be advanced by motion and if unsuccessful can still be advanced at jury trial.)

Great Cove Boat Club v. Bureau of Public Lands

672 A.2d 91 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 21, 1996

Great Cove commenced an action to establish its easement rights over the submerged land. After completion of discovery, both parties moved for a summary judgment. … beginning, the bounds including and comprising all of the lands, submerged lands and waters contained therein, be and hereby is incorporated into a separate town, by the name of Eliot, with all the powers, privileges, and immunities

Shulenburg v. Jamieson

Superior Court of Maine · Jun 13, 2018

The "clearly established" prong has two parts. … The Court cited numerous cases3 to support its conclusion that the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test had been met in the circumstances presented that case, namely the arrest of a woman for a nonviolent

BAKER v. GOODMAN

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 25, 2022

Thus, “if it was clearly established on April 12, 2014 that an officer violates clearly established law in shooting a suspect 69 feet away with a gun to his side, it was likewise clearly established on April 18, 2017 that … Step Two: Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must analyze the legal landscape at the time of the constitutional violation and determine

Sandy River Nursing Care Center v. National Council on Compensation Insurance

798 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 18, 1992

According to the Court: It is the state which has created the machinery for establishing the prorate program. … Under Noerr, the political activity of the Defendants in seeking the influence the passage of the 1987 Act is clearly protected.

State v. Littlefield

161 Me. 415 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 11, 1965

The testimony of the officer clearly supports consent by respondents to the search of the automobile which was neither refuted nor denied. … When consent is claimed by the state to have rendered lawful an otherwise illegal search and seizure, the burden is on the state affirmatively to establish the consent. Villano v.

Estate of Hampton v. Androscoggin County

245 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 9, 2003

Willigar was able to hear clearly what was going on because the two parties were yelling through the cell blocks. … Town of Pittsfield, 924 F.Supp. 1219, 1236 (D.Me.1996) (discretionary immunity is afforded police officers “except to the extent they act in a manner so egregious as to clearly exceed, as a matter of law, the scope of any

Camps Newfound/Owatonna Corp. v. Town of Harrison

705 A.2d 1109 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 26, 1998

Moreover, the Camp has not contested that it *1116 must establish its status as a benevolent and charitable institution before receiving an exemption for tax years 1992-97. … The Camp’s Privileges and Immunities Clause claim has not been preserved for this remand.

FOX v. MAKIN

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 16, 2023

of the conduct was clearly established at the time.” … For these reasons, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

BROWN v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 18, 2021

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … They may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the facts show that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Mills v.