Case law

City of Auburn v. Tri-State Rubbish, Inc.

630 A.2d 227 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 5, 1993

Accordingly, the City and MMWAC are shielded from the federal antitrust laws by state action immunity. IV. … Then, the statute will be upheld unless the burden on commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits. 16 Id.

CTC Communications Corp. v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

77 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 12, 1999

Only sham recourse to governmental agencies and the courts is not immune. Id. at 58 , 113 S.Ct. 1920 . … While these statutes do not establish a “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy,” Midcal, 445 U.S. at 105 , 100 S.Ct. 937 , by specifically authorizing Bell’s use of termination penalties and cancellation

State v. Doucette

398 A.2d 36 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 28, 1978

Again, the issue was not properly preserved for appeal: the defendant not only failed to request another interpreter but also agreed that Cutler was qualified. … Clearly, no error, manifest or otherwise, was committed.

Kennedy v. State

730 A.2d 1252 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1999

CASA was established within the Judicial Department "to provide volunteer lay persons to serve as court appointed special advocates or guardians ad litem under Title 22, section 4005, subsection 1, in child abuse and neglect … As director of CASA, Kennedy was appointed by the Chief Judge of the District Court, id. § 1502, to "recruit the services of qualified persons to serve as volunteer court appointed special advocates.” id. § 1503.

Dunsmore v. Pratt

116 Me. 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 27, 1917

Seavey, 28 Maine, 45; the oath must state that debtor is about to establish a residence outside of the State, in affiant’s belief, and a defective oath cannot be supplied by supplemental oath. Whiting v. … Jewell, 34 Maine, 543; “omission of pronoun ‘his’ or analogous expression to qualify ‘support’ fatal,” Proctor v. Lathrop, 68 Maine, 256.

Samaan v. St. Joseph Hospital

274 F.R.D. 41 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 1, 2011

Samaan cannot establish a foundation to qualify Drs. Walsh or Hussein as expert witnesses on the Efficacy of t-PA in this case. Id. at 6-8. The Defendants draw the Court’s attention to Dr. … Hussein is qualified to testify about the efficacy of t-PA.” Def.’s Mot. at 7-8. They note that Mr. Samaan has produced medical records that seem to establish “that Dr.

State v. Fantastic Fair & Karmil Merchandising Corp.

158 Me. 450 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 30, 1961

It follows for this reason alone that neither establishment was a drug store. This is not to say that a department in a department store may not qualify as a drug store. … So likewise the drug department, if there were compliance with the statutes, supra, would qualify as a drug store.

Maine v. Boston & Maine Railroad

123 Me. 48 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 21, 1923

Such a conclusion would lead to the utmost confusion, and tend to unsettle established law and business dependent thereon. … The established rule of construction is that rights, privileges and immunities not expressly granted are reserved. There is no safety in public interests in any - other rule.

United States v. Duhamel

770 F. Supp. 2d 414 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 18, 2011

The Indictment clearly alleges that *416 Duhamel was not entitled to any funds as a Plan participant after 2002. (See Indictment ¶ 15.) II. … The Court's ruling limiting the temporal scope of the Indictment does not foreclose the Government from seeking to introduce evidence of actions taken prior to December 15, 2005, so long as the Government establishes that

Guardianship of Jewel M.

2 A.3d 301 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 17, 2010

We held that “[t]he power of the court to adjudicate such disputes and to enforce its own orders constitutes state involvement in a way that clearly implicates parents’ fundamental liberty interests in the care and custody … The record of the April 2010 hearing unequivocally establishes that, by her action, the grandmother prevented the counseling transition from occurring. [¶ 49] The grandmother cannot prevail on her burden of proof to establish

Fleming v. Gardner

658 A.2d 1074 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 25, 1995

complaint and moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for the failure of Fleming to state a claim for which relief could be granted and on the further ground that as court-appointed counsel they were immune … Although the court stated it was satisfied that the record of the *1077 M.R.Crim.P. 11 proceedings conducted on May 7, 1992, at which Fleming had entered guilty pleas, clearly reflected he had done so knowingly and voluntarily

State v. Cates

99 Me. 68 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 24, 1904

S., c. 128, § 13,) does not establish numerous independent offenses, — it established but one offense. It declares ‘every lottery, scheme or device of chance’ to be a nuisance. … In the case at bar “the statute does not establish numerous independent offenses.”

Crocker v. Lewis

6 F. Cas. 831 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Oct 15, 1837

The second respects the rejection of the letter of the same witness, which, it is supposed, had a *834 .tendency to qualify the statements in the deposition. … For any other purposes, or to establish any other independent facts, it would not be admissible, as it would ^e mere hearsay, and not under oath.

State v. Cosgro

945 A.2d 1221 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 3, 2008

Haskell, 2001 ME 154 , 784 A.2d 4 , “does not declare for all time that SORNA is immune from an ex post facto challenge,” we cannot find based on the record before us that the court erred in denying Cosgro’s motion to dismiss … erroneous, given that "undisputed evidence established] that Diecidue had registered as required under SORNA in 2002.”

Carey v. Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar

Superior Court of Maine · Jan 3, 2018

The Law Court's determinations of when certain actions qualify for the protections of discretionary immunity seemingly turn on the issue of whether the challenged actions "[were] associated with a plan or policy developed … Plaintiff has not established prima facie evidence showing that Dr.

Barry v. Austin

118 Me. 51 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 7, 1919

On the other hand such a rule, if it clearly overrides the real purpose of the testator, is to be applied cautiously, and is not to be forced. Hopkins v. Keazer, 89 Maine, 347-353; Holcomb v. … The effect of this depends upon whether it is a qualified or an unqualified power.

Harold D. Smith & Sons, Inc. v. Finance Authority

543 A.2d 814 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 29, 1988

After careful examination of the record, we conclude that although there is evidence that would support a contrary conclusion, the Authority’s findings are not clearly erroneous. … Consequently, Smith urges us to establish a policy exception to the general rule for cases demonstrating an unfairness to the parties.

Mattson v. Mattson

376 A.2d 473 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 8, 1977

The testimony of the marriage counselor was not objected to at trial once his qualifications were established, nor was there any subsequent motion to strike. … When the alleged cause is irreconcilable marital differences, a divorce shall not be granted unless both parties have received counseling by a professional counselor who is qualified in counseling either through educational

Doe Ex Rel. Maine Department of Human Services v. Rowe

156 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 9, 2001

Therefore, a person otherwise qualified, who is mentally ill but not under guardianship for that illness, may register and vote. … This result is clearly displayed by the evidence suggesting that some persons under guardianship for mental illness, in fact, continued to vote while under guardianship.

Nature Conservancy of Pine Tree State, Inc. v. Town of Bristol

385 A.2d 39 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 24, 1978

Vinalhaven, Me., 372 A.2d 1043, 1046 (1977) “The burden of establishing tax exemption is upon the plaintiff. . . . … Although in its brief, plaintiff argues in the alternative that it qualifies for the exemption as a scientific institution, the argument was not pressed at oral argument. In Hurricane Island Outward Bound v.