Case law

Plumbago Mining Corp. v. Sweatt

444 A.2d 361 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 1982

It is an established principle of equity that A person who has conferred a benefit upon another in compliance with a judgment, or whose property has been taken thereunder, is entitled to restitution if the judgment is reversed … Immunity. Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all governmental entities shall be immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages.

Harmon v. Fagan

130 Me. 171 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 10, 1931

At some time, the exact date not clearly appearing, the executor indicated his inability to consent to a change of commissioners without the consent of an heir then out of the state. … The creditor then has an established tribunal to which he may present his claim.

United States v. State of Me.

524 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 13, 1981

The sliding scale fee at issue clearly satisfies the first part of the test. … Section 6-203(1) also establishes a fixed annual "notification" fee of $10.00 for each creditor.

ISMAIL v. ROBINSON

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 26, 2024

Regardless, Officer Wrigley argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “did not violate any of Ismail’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. … Officer Wrigley Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Officer Wrigley finally asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “did not violate any of Ismail’s clearly established constitutional

Cottrill v. Myrick

12 Me. 222 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1835

Many cases of this character exist, in which the legislative power is well established. … It is said, that the acting town clerks of these towns were not legally qualified.

Olfene v. Bd. of Trustees, Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys.

Superior Court of Maine · Dec 4, 2008

Clearly, prong one of the Metcalf & Eddy test weighs in favor of granting the System immunity. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law"). 7 The System is even more clearly an alter ego of the State for section 1983 purposes

COX

District Court, D. Maine · May 13, 2026

Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit appears to be an outlier in establishing broader liability for publishing a mugshot, and the First Circuit has not spoken on the issue. … Under the MTCA, governmental entities are immune from suit unless their actions fit within one of the exceptions to immunity. Id. § 8104-A.

Inhabitants of Boothbay v. Inhabitants of Boothbay Harbor

148 Me. 31 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 16, 1952

It is a general and well established rule that apart from clear legislative authority, a municipal corporation cannot extend its services (except incidentally) beyond its borders. … The duties, powers, rights and immunities of the municipality of Houlton have not been extended by legislative grant beyond its own boundaries.

Dineen v. Inhabs. of the town of Kittery

Superior Court of Maine · Oct 16, 2006

Eaton and the Town now move for summary judgment, claiming absolute immunity for the Town and discretionary function and/or qualified immunity for Eaton under the MTCA. … Although the language of this policy is not as explicit as the immunity language in Webb because it does not directly mention the MTCA, it does clearly indicate that the Town did not intend to waive the immunity to which

Wright v. Michaud

959 A.2d 753 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 18, 2008

Therefore, the court did not clearly err in finding that the FERS benefits constitute omitted property subject to division. [¶ 9] Wright further contends that even if the court rightfully concluded that his FERS benefits … earlier than expected, and are in the form of disability payments, those benefits are somehow transformed from divisible marital property to nonmari-tal property. 3 Moreover, there was no evidence before the trial court to establish

O'Malley v. O'Malley

338 A.2d 149 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 21, 1975

ISSUE IV Appellant has challenged as clearly erroneous other findings and conclusions made by the Justice below. … It is not necessary to discuss whether the probate decree is equally immunized from, collateral attack. One valid judgment is sufficient to uphold the lower court’s award of custody.

OLSZEWSKI

District Court, D. Maine · Jan 28, 2026

, qualified immunity did not apply. … As the Court concluded that it was not necessary to reach the issue of qualified immunity to decide the motion, the Court did not reach qualified immunity.

In re E.A.

114 A.3d 207 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 24, 2015

At the jeopardy hearing, the father testified that he believed that a hepatitis B immunization had caused the son “to stop developing and growing.” … That the parents ultimately consented to the vaccines does not render the court’s finding clearly erroneous. 8 [¶11] There was no error here.

Cookson v. Brewer School Department

974 A.2d 276 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 2, 2009

First, the employee must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that (1) the employee is a member of a protected class; (2) the employee applied for and was qualified for the job that the employer was seeking to fill … In these circumstances, we need not reach Lee’s additional argument that he is immune from tort liability because he was performing a discretionary government function pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1) (2008).

State v. Arnheiter

598 A.2d 1183 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 1, 1991

Factual determinations will not be disturbed unless “clearly erroneous”. M.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Even then, the ruling will not be overturned if the error was “harmless”. M.R.Civ.P. 61; State v. … The record shows that Phillips had ample experience to qualify him as an expert under M.R.Evid. 702; therefore, the admission of his testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

Hall v. Maine Municipal Employees Health Trust

93 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 15, 2000

Since its establishment in 1982, MMEHT has operating on the assumption that it qualifies as an ERISA plan and filed all of the necessary papers with the IRS and the Department of Labor. … Therefore, once the Court finds that MMEHT was established by an association of employers, it need not determine about who maintains the plan to conclude that the plan qualifies as an EWBP. 10 .

Northeast Bank & Trust Co. v. Soley

481 A.2d 1123 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 5, 1984

I The schedule In order to satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule, 2 the proponent of the record must establish, by the testimony of “the custodian or other qualified witness” that (1) the record was made … While this type of communication within the enterprise is hearsay, it clearly falls within the scope of the business records exception.

Pelletier v. Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Authority

Superior Court of Maine · Jun 30, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that, even if Mr. Pelletier has stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Richardson and Ms. Asselin are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity, however, even if there has been a violation of a federal right, if the right was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation. Maldonado v.

GENUJO LOK Beteiligungs GmbH v. Zorn

2008 Me. 50 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 18, 2008

Therefore, the court did not err in concluding that the May 10, 2004 judgment qualifies as a foreign judgment within the meaning of the Maine Recognition Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8502(2). 6 B. … Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512 , 1520 (11th Cir.1994) (“Germany’s legal system clearly follows procedures that ensure that litigants will receive treatment that satisfies American notions of due process.”); see also Dresdner

Downeast Ventures, Ltd. v. Washington County

450 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 7, 2006

Concluding that, if a sufficient foundation has been established, Fed.R.Evid. 701 allows a corporate employee to render a lay opinion as to the value of corporate property, this Court denies Defendants’ motions in limine. … Citing Maine law, 2 they argue *109 that the value of the seized equipment is not a matter of “common knowledge,” that expert testimony is “clearly needed,” and that a corporate employee is not qualified to testify as to