Case law

Hughes v. State

161 Me. 424 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 14, 1965

He was duly appointed and qualified on July 6, 1961, for a term of four years to expire on July 5, 1965. … We believe that appellant would be entitled to discharge under the writ, if the District Court clearly did not have power to act.”

State v. Holland

976 A.2d 227 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2009

It is unknown how many African-Americans in Androscoggin County were qualified on the basis of age for jury duty. … “Random selection” refers to “the selection of names in a manner immune from the purposeful or inadvertent introduction of subjective bias, so that no recognizable class of the population on the lists from which the names

Golding v. Hi-Way Safety Systems, Inc.

Superior Court of Maine · Apr 15, 2020

The other purp01ts to be the original ­ although no foundation is offered as to who took the photo or how any print from a digital photograph can qualify as more original than any other. … Accordingly, it found that the City had established that the waiver of sovereign immunity in 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(4) did not apply.

Michelle L. Seymour v. Joshua J. Seymour

263 A.3d 1079 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 23, 2021

The court summed up its findings by noting that “the evidence clearly demonstrates that this case boils down to one very sad and unfortunate fact: both of the parties are still treating each other abysmally which is harming … The first category of facts includes those matters that can be established with the general knowledge of those persons who live in the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Bragdon v. Chase

149 Me. 146 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 14, 1953

It then becomes entirely unnecessary to decide whether or not the other required elements have been established by the evidence.” In the recent case of Coffin v. … Bisson et al., supra: “There can be no point in discussing the evidence relative to damages in a case where liability has not been established-----.” We also said in Stewart v.

MCKENNA v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 27, 2024

And, though both Plaintiffs qualify for Shared Living Services at the Single Member Served level, DHHS denied them those services because they live together. … Lombardi, 239 F.3d 23, 27 (1st Cir. 2001) (“[A]llegations in a lawyer’s brief or legal memorandum are insufficient . . . to establish jurisdictional facts.”).

Leavitt v. SW & B Construction Co.

766 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 25, 2011

Leavitt argues that his employment record at SW & B clearly establishes that he was qualified for his position. Id. at 7. … Leavitt’s ten years of employment at BE & K and SW & B, his positive evaluations, and his awards are more than sufficient to establish that he was qualified for the job of safety coordinator.

Casco Bank & Trust Co. v. Cloutier

398 A.2d 1224 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 16, 1979

As will more clearly appear below, we are called upon to elucidate the policies served by those formal requisites in order to determine the ultimate question raised by the appeals: whether and under what circumstances, consistently … However, where more than one document is proffered to establish the enforceability of a security interest, sound analysis requires that we make a threshold inquiry as to the criteria by which we determine, consistently with

Matheson v. Bangor Publishing Co.

414 A.2d 1203 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1980

which the parties have abstracted from the case in an attempt to get a binding Law Court decision even before discovery is complete and the case in order for trial in the Superior Court, arises from defendants’ claim of a qualified … The constitutional issue and full factual situation are not posed as clearly or fully by the report in the case at bar as they were in Collett .

United States v. Osman

697 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 2010

In order to establish this defense it will be necessary for Ms. Osman to testify concerning what she did and did not do, and what she reasonably did or did not believe. .... … Osman has not provided the detail to establish either that her testimony is important on Counts 1 and 2 or that she strongly needs not to testify on the remaining counts.

Groton v. Inhabitants of Waldoborough

11 Me. 306 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1834

It is to be presumed that the citizens will promote such men to office, as are best qualified to discharge the duties. … The case before us clearly belongs to the former, and not to the latter class. There are cases of payment upon compulsion of money unlawfully demanded, where no guilt is imputable to the party paying.

Asbury Life Insurance v. Warren

66 Me. 523 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 12, 1876

But the limits of the rule under discussion are so clearly laid down by Clifford, J., in his dissenting opinion in Insurance Co. v. Mosley, that it is unnecessary to pursue the discussion further. … It is also cited in many more modern cases with approbation and without any suggestions that the principles sustained are in any respect to be limited or qualified. In an earlier case that of Climer v.

Bragg v. Burleigh

61 Me. 444 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1871

According to well established rules of interpretation, the meaning of a statute is to be sought first of all in the words and language employed. … When these are free from ambiguity, and clearly express the intent of the legislature, it is not allowable to resort to a subtle and forced construction in order to restrict or extend the meaning.

Anderson v. Quinn

495 F. Supp. 730 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 11, 1980

as September 30. 5 Clearly, then, Maine’s April 1 filing deadline as applied to independent candidates for the Presidency places a substantial and .unequal burden on them. … To qualify for the primary, they must file nominating petitions by April 1.

Opinion of the Justices

394 A.2d 1168 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 11, 1978

give advisory opinions is usually described not by general definition encompassing all possible exigencies, but by the negative process of listing those situations that do not constitute a “solemn occasion.” *1171 It is clearly … established through numerous precedents that the Justices have no power to render advisory opinions on a matter which is not of “live gravity.”

Jones v. Jones

18 Me. 308 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1841

Gilman, who married these parties, held that office, and also that of justice of the peace for the county, and was duly qualified. … The language of the act and the design of the legislature in passing it clearly indicate the intention, that there should be no appeal from a decision of the Judge upon a question of fact.

MERRILL v. STATE OF MAINE

District Court, D. Maine · Nov 25, 2020

“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 of discovery.” … The Supreme Court has held that courts have discretion to bypass the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis (whether there has been an underlying constitutional violation) and skip to the clearly-established prong

LIGHT v. LIVERMORE, TOWN OF

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 2, 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 … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right.” Id. 8 Regarding Mr. Miller, Mr. Chretien, Mr. Deyling, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Guild, Ms. Martin, and Mr.

Bank of American, N.A. v. Scott A. Greenleaf

96 A.3d 700 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 3, 2014

Given this overlap in source, we have not always clearly distinguished between issues of standing and issues of proof. … Id. [¶19] In this matter, the Bank failed to establish two of the eight foreclosure elements.

State of Maine v. James A. Green

2024 ME 44 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 30, 2024

Green argued that the DRE could not be qualified as an expert under Maine Rule of Evidence 702. … The DRE thus testified as an expert in everything but name. [¶18] “A pretrial objection to . . . evidence must be timely renewed at trial unless the court states on the record, or the context clearly demonstrates