Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kristen LaBree gave birth to a child. Neither Kristen nor her husband, Jeffrey LaBree, was genetically related to the child. Nine month before the birth, a zygote created through the in vitro fertilization of Celia Nolan's egg cell with sperm from her husband, Robert Nolan, was implanted in Kristen. The day the child was born, the Nolans requested that the district court order that they were the parents of the child. The trial court determined that Robert was the father of the child and declared his paternity but declined to declare Celia's maternity, holding that there was no statutory authority for such a determination. The court did declare that Celia was the de facto mother of the child and awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities to the Nolans. The Nolans appealed, and the LaBrees joined the Nolans in their argument. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the court erred in concluding that it lacked statutory authority to declare maternity. View "Nolan v. LaBree" on Justia Law

Michael Joyce, who was frequently exposed to airborne asbestos while working, died of lung cancer. His last documented exposure to asbestos dust was while working for Commercial Welding. A Workers' Compensation Board hearing officer later awarded the estate of Joyce benefits on a petition for an award of compensation and ordered benefits paid to Mary Joyce, Michael's widow, on a petition for death benefits. Commercial Welding appealed the hearing officer's decision as well as the hearing officer's determinations that (1) it had not cured a previously established violation of the Board's "fourteen-day-rule" because it had not paid interest on the required payment imposed for the violation, and (2) it was not permitted to offset the amount of the death benefits ordered to be paid to Mary by the amount of the payment for the fourteen-day rule violation. The Supreme Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the hearing officer's decision. The Court (1) disagreed with the hearing officer's decision that interest was due on the required payment to the Estate, but (2) agreed that the required payment amount could not be used to offset the death benefits ordered to be paid to Mary. View "Estate of Joyce v. Commercial Welding Co." on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Kirk Gould was convicted of gross sexual assault (Class A) and gross sexual assault (Class B). Gould appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Gould's motion to suppress his confession as involuntary where the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Gould's confession was voluntary; (2) Gould was not denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor's alleged misrepresentation of the evidence in closing argument because the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct; and (3) the trial court did not err by denying Gould's motions for a new trial and sanctions based on an alleged discovery violation. View "State v. Gould" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was seriously injured at an intersection when he lost control of his motorcycle as he was attempting to avoid a vehicle driven by former defendant Charlotte Small. At issue was whether there was prima facie evidence that the location of a sign advertising Gibson's Apple Orchard at the intersection required Small to either pull into Plaintiff's lane of traffic to see around the sign or maneuver her car in a way that made Plaintiff believe she was pulling into his lane of traffic. The superior court entered a summary judgment in favor of Gibson's, concluding that a jury would have to engage in speculation to find that the sign proximately caused Plaintiff's accident. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that a jury could rationally find that the sign proximately caused the accident. Remanded. View "McIlroy v. Gibson's Apple Orchard " on Justia Law

Janice and Steven Dunwoody were divorced pursuant to a divorce judgment entered in the district court. Steven filed a motion to clarify the divorce judgment, seeking to establish a life insurance trust as provided in the agreement. The district court issued an order clarifying the original divorce judgment by ordering that the trust be established and ordering the cash surrender value of Steven's life insurance policy to be evenly split between Steven and Janice after their youngest child reached the age of twenty-three. Steven appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the court improperly disposed of omitted property - the cash surrender value of the life insurance policy - within the purview of a motion to clarify. Remanded. View "Dunwoody v. Dunwoody" on Justia Law

Ralph Nader, an independent candidate for President in the 2004 presidential election, and his Maine presidential electors (collectively, Nader) filed a six-count complaint against the Maine Democratic Party (MDP) and others, alleging that Defendants took direct action, and conspired with others, to prevent Nader from appearing on the ballot in Maine and other jurisdictions as a candidate in the 2004 presidential election. The superior court granted Defendants' special motions to dismiss Nader's complaint pursuant to the Maine anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, concluding that Defendants satisfied their burdens under the statute of showing that their activity of challenging nomination petitions was activity manifesting their right of petition under the state and federal Constitutions and that Nader had failed to meet his burden of showing Defendants' efforts were devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, concluding that the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may not be invoked to achieve dismissal of claims alleging abuses of process without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case to support the claims. Remanded. View "Nader v. Me. Democratic Party" on Justia Law

Jack Bailey appealed from a judgment of conviction of ten counts of gross sexual assault and two counts of unlawful sexual conduct entered in the superior court, arguing that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress live-witness testimony because the testimony should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The State contended that the court erred in granting Bailey's motion to suppress evidence discovered during a police search of Bailey's residence. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the circuit court correctly found that Bailey's consent to the search of his apartment was not voluntary, and therefore, the evidence found during the search was properly suppressed; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the live-witness testimony after considering the factors set out in United States v. Ceccolini in determining the admissibility of the witnesses' testimony. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Robert Borjarski appealed from a divorce judgment entered in the district court ending his marriage to Keri Bojarksi. On appeal, Robert made several allegations of error on the part of the district court, including its failure to allocate to Robert the tax exemptions with respect to two of the couple's four children, its determination of its marital portion of Robert's military retirement benefit, and its finding of the amount of marital debt owed on a particular credit card. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the property division portion of the judgment, holding that the district court in certain respects in its division of marital property and debt and in allocation of dependent tax exemptions; and (2) affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Remanded. View "Bojarski v. Bojarski" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, David Christian was convicted of three counts of theft by unauthorized taking, a Class D theft, and one count of theft by unauthorized taking, a Class E theft. Christian appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to deprive his employer of rent payments and that the court erred by classifying two counts as Class D theft rather than Class E theft. The Supreme Court vacated and modified the judgment, holding (1) the record contained sufficient evidence to support the court's findings regarding Christian's intent; but (2) the court erred in its classification of the contested counts. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Christian" on Justia Law

Employee filed a complaint against Employer alleging employment discrimination based on numerous factual allegations. After a jury trial, the jury found (1) Employer had taken adverse employment action against Employee in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), but (2) Employer had not failed to provide Employee with reasonable accommodations for his hearing impairment or the shoulder injury he received while working for Employer. Employee appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court erred in instructing the jury on the statute of limitations, but the error did not prejudice Employee; (2) the court did not err in declining to give Employee's proposed instruction, as the instruction did not state the law correctly; and (3) the superior court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees less than the amount Employee requested. View "Kezer v. Cent. Me. Med. Ctr." on Justia Law