Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

J. Cole and P. Daphne Harris filed a complaint against The Woodlands Club and The Woodlands Homeowners Association (collectively, the Woodlands), alleging that the Woodlands tortiously discharged surface water onto their property causing flooding and an increase in wetland. The superior court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the Woodlands on the Harrises' statutory trespass and negligence claims and concluded that disputes of material facts precluded a summary judgment on the common law trespass claim. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) concluding that the Woodlands was not liable for trespass; (2) entering judgment in favor of the Woodlands on the Harrises' negligence claim; and (3) entering a pretrial order excluding certain testimony. View "Harris v. Woodlands Club" on Justia Law

Nancy Ramsey filed a complaint against Baxter Title Company and the company's owner, James Lemieux, for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of care and for punitive damages arising from a real estate transaction. The superior court dismissed Ramsey's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Ramsey's complaint did not allege the kind of close, confidential relationship necessary for a court to find the existence of a fiduciary duty; and (2) Baxter Title and Lemieux did not owe Ramsey a duty of care to explain to her that the loan she secured was more favorable to the lender than to her. View "Ramsey v. Baxter Title Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, Adroscoggin County, alleging gender discrimination, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The superior court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the County dismissing the counts of constructive discharge and gender discrimination. The retaliation claim proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict for the County. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the partial summary judgment dismissing the constructive discharge claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) notwithstanding its application in the labor and discrimination contexts, constructive discharge does not exist as an independent cause of action under Maine statutory or common law; and (2) because Plaintiff did not challenge the summary judgment denying her claim for gender discrimination or the judgment entered on the jury's verdict denying her claim for retaliatory discrimination, nor did Plaintiff allege that the actions giving rise to her alleged constructive discharge from employment were themselves a form of unlawful discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act, Plaintiff's claim for constructive discharge failed. View "Levesque v. Androscoggin County" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a resort violated the requirement to pay its employees the minimum wage when it paid wait staff a portion of the standard "service charge" that it added to its banquet customers' bills and treated that portion as a "tip" that satisfied the minimum wage law by qualifying the resort for a tip credit. Allison Hayden-Tidd appealed the superior court's grant of summary judgment to The Cliff House & Motels, Inc. and the denial of her cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Hayden-Tidd contended that the court erred when it rejected her argument that the wage laws required Cliff House to treat its entire banquet staff service charge as a "tip" to be paid to the banquet servers for purposes of the tip credit statute. The Supreme Court agreed that Cliff House's compensation arrangement with its banquet servers did not violate the tip credit statute, and therefore was not a violation of the minimum wage law. View "Hayden-Tidd v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc." on Justia Law

Sears, Roebuck & Company appealed a judgment which concluded as a matter of law that the Supreme Court's holding in "Linnehan Leasing v. State Tax Assessor," (898 A.2d 408) applied retroactively. Sears argued that Maine recognizes the practice of retroactively applying certain legal holdings of a decision in a case to the parties in that case but only prospectively in all other instances. Sears urged the Supreme Court to adopt the three-part test enumerated in "Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson" (404 U.S. 97, 106-07 (1971)) when deciding whether to apply the holding of a decision retroactively to other cases. Sears further argued that "Linnehan Leasing" should not apply retroactively because the three Chevron factors weigh in favor of applying the holding with selective prospectivity. Finally, Sears argued that the Court should have reaffirmed its holding in "Myrick v. James" (444 A.2d 987, 1001-02 (Me. 1982)). Without addressing the issue of retroactivity, the Court applied the plain meaning of the statute at issue and affirmed. View "Sears, Roebuck & Company v. State Tax Assessor" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the question presented to the Supreme Court based on the facts of this case was: "[w]hen a physician is alleged to have acted as an apparent agent of a hospital, does the Maine Health Security Act require that the alleged negligent acts or omissions of that physician be evaluated by the mandatory prelitigation screening and mediation panel before a claim may be brought in court against the hospital based on that physician’s conduct? The Court answered that question in the affirmative: "[b]ecause Maine law requires that a prelitigation screening panel evaluate a physician's alleged professional negligence before consideration at trial, and because that did not occur in the instant case," the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Levesque v. Central Maine Medical Center" on Justia Law

Former Bushmaster shareholders Thomas Barr Jr. and Claude Warren appealed a judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket in which the court granted summary judgment to all defendants on Barr and Warren’s complaint seeking rescission and other remedies based on claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and infliction of emotional distress. The court concluded that the terms of the stock purchase agreement and general release executed in settlement of Barr and Warren’s prior claims must be enforced in the circumstances of this case. The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was the enforceability of the contracts executed in settlement of litigation. The Court found that the minority shareholders (Barr and Warren) explicitly disclaimed reliance on the corporation and its officers and directors in determining the value of the stock that they were selling pursuant to the settlement agreement, but they sought to avoid enforcement of that disclaimer-of-reliance clause. The Court concluded that the allegations purporting to demonstrate fraud did not, in the absence of reliance, vitiate the terms of the contract of release executed between these parties, who had access to counsel, understood Bushmaster’s business, and negotiated clear terms at arm’s length in settlement of the earlier contentious lawsuit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court enforced the general release with regard to the remaining claims, and affirmed the judgment disposing of Barr and Warren’s claims. View "Barr Jr. v. Dyke et al." on Justia Law

Paul Clark obtained a temporary protection from abuse order on behalf of his thirteen-year-old son against Defendant Michelle Fundalewicz, the child’s mother and Paul’s ex-girlfriend. At the time, the child resided with Paul and Paul’s then-fiancée (now wife), Miranda Clark. The child received a phone call on the home’s landline while Paul or both Paul and Miranda were not home. The child eventually revealed that Defendant had called him earlier that day. Paul reported the incident to the police. The child provided a written statement to the police stating that Defendant did call and speak with him. The State charged Defendant with violation of a protection order; Defendant pled not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to a jury-waived trial. At trial, the child testified that it was instead his cousin who called him. He testified that he said it was Defendant in his written statement to police because Paul had told him that if he did not name Defendant, the child would have to move back in with his mother where he would "get treated like crap" as he had been when he lived with her in the past. Miranda testified that a few days after the incident, she spoke with Defendant on the phone, and Defendant admitted to having called and spoken with the child. At the close of the trial, Defendant orally moved for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that "the State failed to establish a corpus for the offense charged" because the State did not provide "evidence independent of any potentially incriminating statements that [Fundalewicz] . . . made." The court denied the motion, found Defendant guilty of violating the protection order, and sentenced her to pay a $400 fine. Although largely circumstantial, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial, along with the reasonable inferences that could have been drawn from it, adequately supported the corpus delicti requirement, as well as the court’s finding that Defendant did in fact call her son in violation of the protection order. View "Maine v. Fundalewicz" on Justia Law

Alisa Morgan appealed the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Robert and Ann Marquis on her complaint alleging that she was entitled to damages on theories of common law strict liability, common law negligence, and statutory liability after she was bitten by the Marquises’ dog. Because the Supreme Court concluded that genuine issues of material fact remained concerning Morgan’s common law negligence and statutory liability claims, it vacated the judgment as to those counts. View "Morgan v. Marquis" on Justia Law

Daniel Whitney appealed his conviction on one count of operating under the influence following his conditional guilty plea. Whitney argued on appeal that the trial court erred in issuing an order denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from a police officer's stop of his vehicle. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the stop was unconstitutional, it vacated the judgment and the order denying the motion to suppress. View "Maine v. Whitney" on Justia Law