Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the Office of the Public Advocate (the appellant) contested a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that approved an amended special rate contract between Bangor Natural Gas Company and Bucksport Generation LLC. The appellant argued that the PUC applied the wrong standard in reviewing the contract, which led to unjust or unreasonable rates and undue or unreasonable preference for Bucksport Generation over other Bangor Gas customers. The appellant also argued that the PUC's order should be vacated because it relied on evidence not included in the record.The court disagreed with the appellant's first argument and found the second argument waived, thereby affirming the PUC's order. The court held that the PUC was within its discretion to apply different standards of review for special rate contracts depending on the type of utility service at issue. Given the competitive nature of the natural gas market in Maine, the court deemed the PUC's standard reasonable.Regarding the rates, the court found that the PUC’s approval of the special rate contract did not result in unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory rates for other Bangor Gas customers. The court noted that incentivizing continued financial contributions from Bucksport Generation to Bangor Gas’s fixed costs was justifiable.Finally, the court ruled that the appellant's argument about the PUC's failure to create an evidentiary record was waived due to the appellant's failure to raise the issue at the PUC level. However, the court acknowledged the appellant's point and advised the PUC to clarify its regulations regarding what materials constitute the evidentiary record in proceedings where an evidentiary hearing is not held. View "Office of the Public Advocate v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court determining that the Aroostook County Commissioners had jurisdiction over an appeal of a municipality's denial of a tax abatement application by Cassidy Holdings, LLC, holding that there was no error.Cassidy, which owned nonresidential property with an equalized municipal valuation of $1 million or greater, requested a partial abatement of its 2021 property taxes. The City of Caribou's Board of Assessors denied the request. The Commissioners declined to hear Cassidy's ensuing appeal on the grounds that they lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The superior court remanded the case for the Commissioners to proceed on the merits, concluding that the Commissioners erred in determining that they lacked jurisdiction over the abatement appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of 36 Me. Rev. Stat. 844 provides for concurrent jurisdiction before either the Commissioners or the State Board. View "Cassidy Holdings, LLC v. Aroostook County Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court reversing the decision of the Town of Eliot's board of appeals vacating the planning board's approval of a large solar array project, holding that the project did not fit the definition of "public utility facility" within the meaning of the Town zoning ordinance.Odiorne Lane Solar, LLC applied to the Planning Board for a approval to build a large solar array project on land located in the Town's rural district. The Planning Board approved the application. The board of appeals, however, vacated the approval. The superior court vacated the board of appeals' decision. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court's judgment, holding that, at the relevant times for this application, the ordinance did not permit the location of the project within the rural district. View "Odiorne Lane Solar, LLC v. Town of Eliot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the superior court dismissing Appellant's lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment and damages, holding that the superior court erred in dismissing the suit.Appellant brought suit against the Town of Richmond challenging tax assessments imposed on her. The superior court dismissed her complaint on the ground that there was no underlying cause of action to support Appellant's request for a declaratory judgment and that she could not collect damages because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) a taxpayer who has been taxed on property that the taxpayer claims is not taxable because the person does not own that property within the meaning of a municipality's statutory authority to tax may challenge the tax on that property either through the statutory abatement process or a declaratory judgment action; and (2) both counts of Appellant's complaint stated a claim. View "Oakes v. Town of Richmond" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court interpreting Me. Rev. Stat. 29-A, 2413-A to permit a determination that Defendant had committed three civil violations and to authorize the trial court to impose consecutive license suspensions, holding that the trial court did not err.Defendant admitted to three counts of committing a motor vehicle violation resulting in death pursuant to section 2413-A(1). After a penalty hearing, the trial court imposed a $5,000 fine and a three-year license suspension for each of the counts, with the fines being cumulative and the suspensions to be imposed consecutively. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the penalties, holding (1) section 2413-A(1) authorizes separate violations for each death that occurs as a result of a driving violation and authorizes trial courts to impose consecutive license suspensions under their discretion; and (2) the trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the consecutive suspensions. View "State v. Santerre" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to revoke or suspend Appellant's hunting license for three years and his guide license for one year, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the Commissioner’s interpretation of the statute mandating revocation of Appellant's hunting license for one year was correct, and her action revoking Appellant's hunting license for one year was supported by substantial evidence; (2) Appellant did not overcome the presumption of constitutionality to demonstrate that the statute governing hunting license revocation and suspension was constitutionally vague; and (3) the Legislature acted within constitutional bounds in delegating authority to the Commissioner to establish standards of competency for licensed guides. View "Wood v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court denying Appellants' Me. R. Civ,. P. 80B petition for review of government action and affirming the decision of the Portland Planning Board to approve 37 Montreal LLC's application to construct a multi-unit residential building, holding that the Planning Board did not err in approving the application.On appeal, Appellants argued that the proposed development failed to meet the City of Portland's Code of Ordinance's height, setback, and design-review requirements, and therefore, the Planning Board erred in approving the application. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the matter to the Planning Board for findings of fact, holding that judicial review was impossible because the Planning Board's decision did not contain any of the required findings. View "Murray v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court awarding attorney fees to the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) based on the court's ruling after an evidentiary hearing that the Maine County Commissioners Association Self-Funded Risk Management Pool (Risk Pool) had refused in bad faith to comply with HRDC's lawful request for records, holding that the Risk Pool's response constituted a bad faith refusal.HRDC submitted to the Risk Pool a request for records pursuant to the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), Me. Rev. Stat. 1, 400-414. The Risk Pool never denied or explicitly refused to comply with HRDC's request. Pursuant to FOAA's appeal procedure, HRDC filed a complaint against, among others, the Risk Pool. The Risk Pool filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that HRDC had failed to meet the FOAA requirement that the appeal be filed within thirty calendar days of the agency's "refusal, denial, or failure" to comply with the FOAA request. The motion was denied, and the court entered judgment in favor of HRDC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) HRDC's complaint was timely filed; and (2) the court did not err in awarding attorney fees based on the finding that the Risk Pool acted in bad faith in responding to HRDC's FOAA request. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. Maine County Commissioners Ass'n Self-Funded Risk Management Pool" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the district court (1) did not err when it found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unfit as parents and that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to meet its statutory obligations pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4041(1-A)(A); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it found that termination of Parents' parental rights, rather than establishing a permanency guardianship, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Children of Quincy A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court affirming the decision of the Belfast Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to issue five permits to Nordic Aquafarms in connection with a proposed land-based salmon aquaculture preoject, holding that the ZBA erred as a matter of law in determining that Upstream Watch did not have standing to appeal.In dismissing the appeal, the ZBA determined that Upstream, a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the restoration of Maine mid-coast rivers and streams, had not demonstrated a particularized injury sufficient to establish standing. The superior court dismissed Upstream's complaint for judicial review, ruling that the ZBA correctly found that Upstream had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it did not file a cognizable appeal with the ZBA. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the case, holding that, as a matter of law, the administrative record sufficiently demonstrated that Upstream had standing to appeal to the ZBA. View "Upstream Watch v. City of Belfast" on Justia Law