Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In Petrin v. Town of Scarborough, the Supreme Judicial Court, in considering challenges to increases in municipal property taxes for parcels located in neighborhoods in the Town of Scarborough, concluded that the Town’s practice of undervaluing separate but abutting lots held in common ownership resulted in discriminatory tax treatment. In this separate action, the Court addressed similar challenges brought by owners of residential waterfront properties located in an area of Scarborough not at issue in Petrin. Plaintiffs appealed a judgment determining that they did not have standing to pursue one of their challenges but otherwise affirming the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review’s denial of their tax abatement petitions. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to pursue their challenges; (2) the Board did not err in concluding that a partial revaluation conducted by the Town was proper; but (3) the Board erred by denying Plaintiffs’ requests for abatement based on the Town’s practice of undervaluing abutting lots, which resulted in discriminatory assessments. View "Angell Family 2012 Prouts Neck Trusts v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law

Richard and Ann Cayer filed a petition to secede from the Town of Madawaska. Thereafter, the Legislature enacted and the Governor approved a bill changing the Legislature’s practice for receiving and considering secession petitions. The Town determined that the amended statute governing legislature consideration applied to the Cayers’ petition, and the Madawaska Board of Select People declined the Cayers’ requests to schedule an advisory referendum on the Cayers’ petition. The Cayers sought review of the Town’s denial of their request to schedule an advisory referendum and sought a declaratory judgment that the repealed version of the secession statute applied to their petition. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Town and found the Cayers’ challenge to the Town’s explicit refusal to take any action untimely. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in determining that the appeal was untimely; (2) the Town’s actions provided no basis for a civil rights claim or a declaratory judgment action; and (3) an action for a writ of mandamus provided no alternative cause of action. View "Cayer v. Town of Madawaska" on Justia Law

As a result of a partial revaluation of parcels of land located within the Town of Scarborough, including land owned by Plaintiffs, the municipal assessment of the parcels of land increased. Plaintiffs sought abatements from the Town assessor and the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review without success. Plaintiffs appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that they bore an unequal share of the Town’s overall tax burden. The Business and Consumer Docket concluded that Plaintiffs did not have standing to seek remedial relief because Plaintiffs’ properties were not treated differently than the properties of other taxpayers. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the Town’s method of assessing separate but abutting parcels held in common ownership resulted in unequal apportionment, and the Board erred in concluding that the unlawful practice did not result in discriminatory assessments of Plaintiffs’ properties; and (2) therefore, Plaintiffs had standing to pursue all of their challenges. Remanded. View "Petrin v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of the Maine Public Employees Retirement System affirmed an administrative determination that Appellant was ineligible for disability retirement benefits. Appellant later filed an incomplete petition for review of final agency action in the superior court. The complete petition was required to be filed on or before April 7. Appellant did not file a complete petition under April 15. The superior court dismissed as untimely Appellant’s petition for review of the Board’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in dismissing the petition as untimely or in denying Appellant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. View "Bastille v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

After Robert Rossignol was notified that his teaching contract would not be renewed, Rossignol applied to the Maine Public Employees Retirement System (MPERS) for disability retirement benefits. Rossignol alleged that he suffered from depression, anxiety, and panic attacks, which made it impossible for him to perform the duties of his position. The Executive Director’s designee denied Rossignol’s application. The MPERS Board of Trustees affirmed the denial of disability retirement benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rossignol failed to demonstrate that, under the governing statutory standard, he was entitled to disability retirement benefits. View "Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

In 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his son. At the commencement of the termination hearing, Father told the court that he was unwell and that he wanted to reschedule the hearing. The court allowed Father to leave and told him the hearing would be rescheduled if Father filed a doctor’s note. Father never filed a doctor’s note and no rehearing was scheduled. The court subsequently terminated Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not violate Father’s right to due process when it conducted the termination hearing in Father’s absence. View "In re Adden B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied to the State Harness Racing Commission to renew his driver/trainer license for horse harness racing in Maine. The Commission denied the application because Plaintiff had previously been denied a license by a racing authority in New York. The Commission based its conclusion that the reciprocal disciplinary action provision of the harness racing licensing statute prohibited the issuance of the Maine license even though New York had subsequently rescinded its license denial. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the statute. View "Mosher v. State Harness Racing Comm’n" on Justia Law

After taking maternity leave, Plaintiff returned to work. She quit, however, after disputes between her and Employer arose over a change to her schedule that made her childcare situation more difficult, and over an appropriate place for her to pump breast milk at work. The Bureau of Unemployment Compensation denied Plaintiff’s claim for unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor’s Division of Administrative Hearings affirmed. The Unemployment Insurance Commission affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff “was not able and available for full-time work” within the meaning of Me. Rev. Stat. 26, 1192(3). The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in its construction of the statute and that its decision was not contrary to public policy. View "Cheney v. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an application for disability retirement benefits alleging that she was unable to perform her job with the Maine Department of Transportation because of her numerous disabilities. The Maine Public Employees Retirement System Board of Trustees denied benefits after considering Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff appealed, challenging only the denial of benefits as to her fibromyalgia. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the medical board’s reports were a proper part of the evidentiary record; and (2) the record did not compel a finding that Plaintiff met her burden of proving that her fibromyalgia caused functional limitations that made it impossible for her to do her job. View "Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

Fryeburg Water Company (FWC) sought approval from the Public Utilities Commission to execute an agreement with Nestle Waters North America, Inc. (NWNA) providing for the lease of premises and purchase of water from FWC. After an adjudicatory proceeding concerning the request, the Commission conditionally approved the proposed agreement. Bruce Taylor and Food & Water Watch appealed, challenging the Commission’s procedural decisions and the Commission’s ultimate approval of the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion or violation of a statutory or constitutional provision in the Commission’s decision approving FWC’s proposed agreement with NWNA. View "Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n" on Justia Law