Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting (MFBH) is a Maine ballot question committee that was a proponent of November 2014 Ballot Question 1 concerning bear hunting and trapping. As early as September 2013, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife used agency resources to communicate with the public in opposition to Question 1. MFBH filed a complaint against the Department alleging that the Department’s campaign activities constituted an ultra vires expenditure of public funds. In November 2014, Maine voters defeated the ballot question. The Department subsequently filed a motion to dismiss MFBH’s complaint on the grounds of mootness and standing. In March 2015, the superior court dismissed the complaint as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case is moot and that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. View "Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting (MFBH) is a Maine ballot question committee that was a proponent of November 2014 Ballot Question 1 concerning bear hunting and trapping. As early as September 2013, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife used agency resources to communicate with the public in opposition to Question 1. MFBH filed a complaint against the Department alleging that the Department’s campaign activities constituted an ultra vires expenditure of public funds. In November 2014, Maine voters defeated the ballot question. The Department subsequently filed a motion to dismiss MFBH’s complaint on the grounds of mootness and standing. In March 2015, the superior court dismissed the complaint as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case is moot and that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. View "Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Brenda Freeman was injured in a work-related accident in 2007. Freeman returned to work but in a lower-paying position. Because of the decrease in her wages, Freeman received partial incapacity benefit payments. In 2011, Freeman suffered a second work-related injury. During Freeman’s period of incapacity, her employer paid 100 percent partial incapacity benefits based on the 2007 injury. Freeman filed a petition for award of compensation claiming that although she was already receiving benefits that equaled the maximum compensation rate as a result of her 2007 injury, she was eligible for additional compensation for the same period as a result of her 2011 injury. The hearing officer concluded that Freeman was ineligible for compensation beyond the statutory maximum benefit, regardless of the number of injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the hearing officer correctly construed the statutory maximum benefit provision of the Workers Compensation Act as a total ceiling on the potential benefits available to an injured employee, regardless of the number of injuries the employee suffers. View "Freeman v. NewPage Corp." on Justia Law

Somerset County receives income generated by boarding federal prisons at the Somerset County Jail (SCJ). That income is used to support the jail budget. During fiscal year 2013, the County received more federal boarding revenue than anticipated. Without consulting with or receiving approval from the former State of Maine Board of Corrections, the County applied a portion of that surplus income to debt service for the cost to construct the SCJ facility. In response, the Board correspondingly reduced the amount of the County’s corrections funding from other sources. The County appealed. The superior court vacated the Board’s decision to withhold funding, concluding that pertinent legislation did not authorize the Board to adjust payments to the County as a result of the County’s unauthorized use of surplus federal boarding income. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court’s judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections, as the party substituted for the Board, holding that the Board acted within its authority when it took action affecting the funding otherwise due to the County. View "Somerset County v. Dep’t of Corr." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court considered when a municipal agency’s decision constitutes a final action subject to immediate judicial review. The owner of the Camden Harbour Inn applied to the Town of Camden for authorization to increase the number of guest rooms and parking spaces for the Inn and to reduce the number of seats at the Inn’s restaurant. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted a special exception permit subject to conditions and allowed the Inn to proceed to the Planning Board for site plan review. Susan Bryant, an abutter, appealed the ZBA’s decision to the superior court before site plan review could occur. The superior court affirmed the ZBA’s decision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded for dismissal of Bryant’s complaint, holding that, while the Town’s Zoning Ordinance expressly provided for Bryant’s appeal from the grant of the preliminary special permit, the ZBA’s decision was not a final action subject to appellate review in the courts because additional process was required by the Town’s Ordinance before a final decision on the Inn’s proposed changes is reached. View "Bryant v. Town of Camden" on Justia Law

Ed Friedman, joined by others, filed a complaint raising issues regarding the health effects Central Maine Power Company’s (CMP) advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) system. After conducting an investigation, the Maine Public Utilities Commission concluded that AMI does not pose a credible threat of harm to the health and safety of CMP’s customers. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission applied the correct credible threat standard; (2) the Commission’s determination was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the two Commissioners serving on the panel unequivocally concurred in the decision despite their differing rationales. View "Friedman v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied for abatement of real property taxes that the Town of Lebanon assessed against her property for the tax years 2011 through 2013. The Town denied the application on the basis that the taxes had been paid. After a de novo hearing, the York County Commissioners ultimately denied Plaintiff’s application for abatement for tax years 2011 and 2012 and remanded the matter for further action with respect to tax year 2013. The superior court affirmed the decision of the Commissioners with respect to the 2011 and 2012 tax years. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff failed to supply the Court with a complete and defined record of the evidence and arguments presented to the Commissioners, the Court could not review Plaintiff’s argument that the Commissioners were compelled to authorize an abatement. View "Penkul v. Town of Lebanon" on Justia Law

Carol Reece applied for a coastal sand dune permit to create a vehicle access way to her property abutting a beach and to develop and lawn and walkway on the property. The Department of Environmental Protection granted the permit. Abutting landowner Jonathan Day and others appealed. The Board of Environmental Protection reached a de novo decision granting Reece’s application. The superior court vacated the Board’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court’s judgment, holding that the Board’s interpretations of its own ambiguous rules do not conflict with the relevant statutes or with the rules, and the rules do not compel at the interpretation reached by the superior court. Remanded for entry of a judgment affirming the Board’s decision to grant Reece the permit. View "Day v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Town of Eddington Planning Board and Board of Selectmen seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent a public vote on a moratorium on quarries and a declaration that any moratorium that might be approved was null, void, and of no legal effect because the town violated the open meeting requirements imposed by the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) during an executive session. The trial court entered a judgment for the Town, determining that the executive session, invoked for the purpose of consulting with counsel, had complied with the FOAA. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the moratorium should be declared null and void. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that the executive session complied with the conditions specified in the FOAA. View "Hughes Bros., Inc. v. Town of Eddington" on Justia Law

A Deputy of the Department of Labor, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation determined that Plaintiff had been overpaid $13,157 in unemployment insurance benefits and was required to reimburse the Bureau in that amount. Nearly one year after the expiration of the appeal period Plaintiff appealed the Department’s decision. The Department of Labor, Division of Administrative Hearings dismissed the appeal as untimely. On appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Commission remanded the matter to the Division to develop an evidentiary record on the timeliness of Plaintiff’s appeal and the merits of her appeal. On remand, the Division developed the record and submitted the record to the Commission for decision. The Commission concluded that Plaintiff’s appeal to the Division was untimely. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Commissioner correctly concluded that the Deputy’s decision had become final and that it was without jurisdiction to address the merits of her untimely appeal. View "Ramelli v. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n" on Justia Law