Case law

LaFleur Ex Rel. Anderson v. Frost

146 Me. 270 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 27, 1951

upon the expiration of the thirty-day period for signatures by qualified voters. … Clearly, the initiative and referendum under the “city ordinance” is not the same initiative and referendum set forth in the Charter.

Roberts v. McIntire

84 Me. 362 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 24, 1892

The precise question has never been directly determined in this State, but the correct solution of it is only a corollary from the principles established by our decisions respecting the true intent and meaning of this statute … He clearly had no desire to exercise that right, but a manifest purpose to waive it and to express his assexxt to the deed.

Radvanovsky v. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs Employment Security Commission

427 A.2d 961 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 6, 1981

Broad concepts of welfare assistance must not be made to control or restrict the primary purpose of the Employment Security Law, unless clearly dictated by legislative terminology. … While this is the appropriate and presumed office of a proviso, it may be clearly designed to perform some other function.

Owen v. Royal Industries, Inc.

314 A.2d 60 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 7, 1974

The petitioner maintains that he was an employee of Royal Industries, Inc. on the day of the mishap and should therefore qualify for workmen’s compensation benefits. … Allen & Sons, Inc., Me., 266 A.2d 240 (1970), we construed this language to mean that the Commission’s findings will not be upset *62 unless “clearly erroneous”. 1 In the instant case, we are applying this clearly erroneous

Maine AFL-CIO Housing Development Corp. v. Town of Madawaska

523 A.2d 581 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 2, 1987

The corporation’s contracts with HUD require it to comply with federal regulations that limit tenant eligibility for housing at the project to very low income elderly or handicapped individuals and establish maximum levels … The HUD regulations controlling the corporation’s project clearly restrict the eligibility of tenants to those whose incomes are very low and who are either elderly or handicapped.

Dion v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services

743 F. Supp. 80 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 12, 1990

The Court finds dictionary definitions of the word "child" inconclusive in establishing a plain meaning of the term. … However, resort to dictionaries to establish the plain meaning of a statutory term is not always conclusive. See Burns v.

State v. Verrill

54 Me. 408 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

This mode of framing indictments in the higher crimes may be considered, therefore, as having been established rather by precedent and authority than by any legal principle involved. … The second and third sections do not in any respect qualify the first, but defines the different degrees of murder.

JOHNSON v. CITY OF BIDDEFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 15, 2020

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … established” for the purposes of qualified immunity.

Bartley v. Eastern Maine Medical Center

617 A.2d 1020 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 14, 1992

Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court on the basis that the approval of their staff privileges established a contract between them and the hospital. … The granting of privileges signifies that a doctor is qualified to practice at the hospital. 5 EMMC has determined that *1023 each of the Plaintiffs is qualified, and that determination is embodied in the staff privileges

Cornwall Industries, Inc. v. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, Employment Security Commission

351 A.2d 546 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 1976

This Act provides for the accumulation of reserves during periods of employment to be paid to qualified workers during periods of unemployment. … The issue in Stewart was whether the petitioner qualified as an employer within section 1043, the Act’s definitional section.

Maine Water Co. v. Knickerbocker Steam Towage Co.

99 Me. 473 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 17, 1905

Clearly not. And yet such a bridge would not be affirmatively authorized by Congress except in the proviso in the section. … And in its new position we think that the general prohibition is likewise qualified by the sentences which follow.

Nightingale v. R.J. Grondin & Sons

Superior Court of Maine · Jan 6, 2017

Whether MDOT and the State of Maine are Immune Defendants argue that the State and MDOT are immune from liability for the reasons set forth in Paschal v. City ofBangor, 2000 ME 50, 747 A.2d 1194. … Peshkin is qualified to opine on the topic. His CV demonstrates a long and detailed knowledge of pavement research, evaluation, and design. Additionally, while Mr.

Perkins v. Blethen

107 Me. 443 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 6, 1931

By a well established line of cases in this State it is held that this statute gives a married woman the power to contract with her husband as well as with strangers in reference to her separate estate. Webster v. … On the other hand, it is as clearly held that the common law doctrine of the marriage relation is still in full effect except as modified by statute, and this is inconsistent with the maintenance of actions at law between

State v. Dechaine

630 A.2d 234 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 26, 1993

He argues that by reason of their service as jurors they were qualified pursuant to M.R.Evid. 702 as “true experts for the issue of weighing new evidence.” … Clearly it is the trial court, not a juror, that possesses the superior knowledge and experience for determining whether any new evidence offered on a motion for a new trial meets the five well-established criteria for the

Gannett v. Old Colony Trust Co.

155 Me. 248 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 23, 1959

If issue of John survive the stated contingency, will they qualify as takers (by right of representation) in the capacity of “issue” of the testator ? We answer in the affirmative. … He established three equal life *250 estates, one of which was for the benefit of “my son, John H. Gannett.”

In Re Bailey M.

788 A.2d 590 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 28, 2002

See Andrews, ¶ 4, 716 A.2d at 215 (interlocutory review of denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment stage proper because reversal after judgment would not vindicate defendant’s right to avoid having to defend suit … The statute clearly states that the presumption is that proceedings will be closed absent extraordinary circumstances.

Russell v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.

32 A.3d 1030 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 6, 2011

The establishment of the prima facie burden simply allows a plaintiff to proceed with the action. The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff at all times. … The Legislature clearly intended that the protections of the MHRA reach employers who are based in Maine even if they have out-of-state employees as well as employers based elsewhere who have employees in Maine.

MACDONALD v. BREWER SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. Maine · Jan 12, 2023

entitled to qualified immunity. … “Therefore, to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must consider whether the constitutional right the defendant allegedly violated was ‘clearly established’ at the

Jackson v. Faber

834 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 4, 1993

Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, - U.S. -,-, 113 S.Ct. 753, 758 (1993) (declining to decide whether women are a qualifying class under section 1985(3)). 6 . … He does, however, allege facts which establish a strong economic motive for filing the civil action.

ARBOUR

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 21, 2025

to afford due process would not have violated a clearly established right. … “[Q]ualified 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 person