Case law

Estate of Anderson

468 A.2d 612 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 9, 1983

Anderson could qualify as prime beneficiary under the terms of the will. … by the first clause [of the will] ... and shall qualify as the sole legatee thereunder.

State of Maine v. Ralph A. Tripp Jr.

2024 ME 12 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 2024

The trial court denied Tripp’s motion to dismiss on November 1, 2021, and reasoned, The exemption from criminal liability statute clearly identifies the four crimes for which a defendant may not be prosecuted … Because Tripp did not invoke his right to remain silent, he has not established any error, let alone obvious error “so clear under existing law that the court and the prosecutor were required to address the matter even

GILBERT v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (DHHS)

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 2025

Gilbert has not established a violation under Youngberg, the Court does not reach whether the Plaintiff has established a violation under the more demanding Lewis test. … immunity is the rule and exceptions to immunity are to be strictly construed.’”

Prentiss v. Davis

83 Me. 364 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 9, 1891

The proof of certain facts, in a chain of events, leads directly and forcibly to the conclusion of the existence of the facts, which naturally and properly and usually precede those which are known and established.” … following formula has been adopted : "The inhabitants of the town of (Brewer), shall continue to be a body politic and corporate, by the name of the city of (Brewer), and as such, shall have, exercise and enjoy all the rights, immunities

Colby v. York County Commissioners

442 A.2d 544 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 12, 1982

As to count II defendant moved to dismiss on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity and failure to state a claim. … Initially we noted that defendants did not move to dismiss this count as untimely but, rather, sought dismissal on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity and failure to state a claim.

Farnsworth Co. v. Rand

65 Me. 19 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 24, 1876

His testimony was not qualified, hesitating, and uncertain, like that offered in Chapman v. Limerick, 56 Maine, 390. … established.

DASTINOT v. AUBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT,et al

District Court, D. Maine · Jan 6, 2023

On the second issue (i.e., the “clearly established” issue), to avoid the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must: (1) “identify either controlling authority or a consensus of cases of persuasive authority sufficient … Prince George’s Cnty, 154 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1998) (officer investigating possible break-in who directed dog to search a house and bite was not entitled to qualified immunity because “it was clearly established in

Bussey v. Gilmore

3 Me. 191 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1824

Their competency to make the commutation was established and confirmed; but the competency of those, with whom such contracts might be made, was left to depend upon the general rules of law, unaffected by the provisions of … The privilege purchased by the contract, was valuable to many of the citizens, in their individual capacity ; but the town had no corporate interest to be promoted by the immunity.

SWAIN v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 31, 2023

“The qualified immunity analysis has two facets: the court must determine whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and then must determine whether the allegedly abridged right was clearly established … On the second issue (i.e., the “clearly established” issue), to avoid the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must: (1) “identify either controlling authority or a consensus of cases of persuasive authority

Wilner Wood Products Co. v. State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (In Re Wilner Wood Products Co.)

119 B.R. 345 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1990

Under either standard, the likelihood of success on the merits has been established. 3. Clearly, the balance of the harm element favors the debtor. … The DEP raises two arguments against jurisdiction—sovereign immunity, and the Anti-Injunction Act.

State v. Bickart

963 A.2d 183 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 20, 2009

We held that the “proponent of expert testimony must establish that (1) the testimony is relevant pursuant to M.R. … Such habit may be proven by evidence of specific instances of conduct numerous enough to establish that the habit exists. M.R. Evid. 406(b).

State v. Young

303 A.2d 113 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 30, 1973

That case is clearly distinguishable on its facts and the rule there announced has no application to the issue here raised. Boston v. … Appellant’s objection was stated as follows: “The grounds are they have not established their continuity.

Campbell v. State of Me.

632 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 1, 1985

To support an action under section 1983, 7 a plaintiff must establish that conduct of a person or persons, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution … The facts alleged in this case clearly do not come within this aspect of due process, in that there is no allegation of a defamatory report, or of publication of the facts of discharge.

Roberts v. American Chain & Cable Co.

259 A.2d 43 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 21, 1969

Notwithstanding such clearly expressed judicial doctrine, our Legislature substantially revised the original workmen’s compensation act of 1915 at its 1919 and 1921 sessions, and both revisions re-enacted the employer’s rights … We rule that the Legislature, in imposing absolute liability on an assenting employer without reference to fault in return for the employee’s speedy recovery of fixed but limited benefits for any industrial injury, has established

Bourgoin v. Sebelius

928 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 28, 2013

To qualify as a SLMB, an applicant must have countable income from 101% to 120% of the FPL. Id. ¶ 27 . To qualify as a QI, an applicant must have countable income from 121% to 135% of the FPL. Id. ¶28 . … Here, however, the Plaintiffs have not established “an extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits.” Id.

Renee Legrand v. York County Judge of Probate

168 A.3d 783 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 25, 2017

In order to obtain the declaratory relief sought here, however, the injury that qualifies the litigant to be a class member must be of constitutional magnitude. … Accordingly, the court did not err in declining to reach the underlying question of whether LeGrand had established violations of substantive due process.

United States v. McInnis

346 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 19, 2004

No credible reáson is established in the evidence as to why Marshal Galvin would make such a promise. … The evidence at the hearing establishes by a preponderance of that evidence that the Defendant possessed a distributable amount of marijuana.

COHEN v. CITY OF PORTLAND

District Court, D. Maine · May 4, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff suing government officials must “show (1) that [the officer violated] federal rights and (2) that these rights were so clearly established that a reasonable officer

Gardiner Trust Co. v. Augusta Trust Co.

134 Me. 191 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 6, 1936

Nothing is said specifically about a guaranty, but one was clearly intended. … But, in the case of a bank, which is in a sense a public institution, which holds itself out as qualified to care for the money of others, it is more than ever important that its charter should be strictly construed, and

FALMOUTH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT v. MR AND MRS DOE

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity as to Count IV With respect to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim brought against Kucinkas individually, the pending Motion also seeks dismissal based upon qualified immunity … Government officials “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.