Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Berwick Iron & Metal Recycling, Inc. operated a metal and automobile recycling business under an existing conditional use permit. In 2010, Berwick Iron applied for a conditional use permit to install and operate a metal shredder. On remand, the Berwick Planning Board voted to approve the conditional use permit. The superior court vacated the Board's judgment, concluding that the Board erred in applying the ordinance governing air emissions. Both parties appealed. On cross-appeal, the abutters argued, among other things, that the superior court erred in concluding that the Board did not violate the abutters' due process rights by communicating ex parte with representatives from Berwick Iron. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's judgment and remanded for entry of a judgment affirming the Board's decision, holding that, despite the Board's ex parte communications with Berwick Iron, the Board did not violate the abutters' due process rights or err in applying its ordinance. View "Duffy v. Town of Berwick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an unsworn notice of claim with the superior court pursuant to the Maine Health Security Act (MHSA) alleging that Defendants were negligent in providing her medical care. The statute of limitations on Plaintiff's claim subsequently expired. Thereafter, Plaintiff served her unsworn notice of claim to Defendants. Plaintiff then filed a sworn notice of claim. The superior court subsequently dismissed Plaintiff's unsworn notice of claim on the ground that the defective notice failed to toll the applicable statute of limitations. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that Plaintiff should be permitted to amend her notice of claim pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 15 and to have the amendment relate back to the original filing date. View "Frame v. Millinocket Reg'l Hosp." on Justia Law

William Cumming was appointed as conservator for John Jennings's estate. George and Janetta Jennings, John's brother and sister, signed a bond for the conservatorship. Cumming later conceded that he misappropriated funds from John's estate. John filed suit against Cumming for breach of fiduciary duty, among other torts, and breach of the obligations of the probate bond. The complaint named George and Janetta, sureties of the probate bond, as co-defendants. The superior court entered a default judgment finding George liable for the breach of the bond by Cumming. George subsequently filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, asserting that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The superior court denied George's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court had concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate actions both on the conservator's misconduct and against the sureties of probate bonds; and (2) probate judicial authorization was not required for Plaintiff to bring a suit on the bond in the superior court. View "Estate of Jennings v. Cumming" on Justia Law

The Superintendent of Insurance ordered Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company (GTL) to pay a civil penalty of $150,000 after finding that GTL violated Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 24-A, 1420-M(1), 1902, and 2412(1-A)(B), and that GTL was accountable, pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 24-A, 1445(1)(D) for violations committed by Cinergy Health, Inc., a company that acted as GTL's producer. The business and consumer docket affirmed the decision of the Superintendent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) GTL was accountable pursuant to section 1445(1)(D) for Cinergy's misconduct occurring before the date on which GTL formally appointed Cinergy as its producer; (2) the Superintendent did not err in concluding that GTL provided coverage to Maine residents and was liable under section 2412(1-A)(B); (3) the Superintendent's did not issue an untimely decision pursuant to the plain language of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 24-A, 235(2); (4) the Superintendent did not abuse her discretion by holding GTL liable under section 1420-M(1); and (5) the Superintendent did not abuse her discretion by penalizing GTL for violating section 1902. View "Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Superintendent of Ins." on Justia Law

This case involved three Enhanced 9-1-1 (E-9-1-1) calls regarding an altercation that resulted in three people being shot. MaineToday Media, Inc. sent a series of requests to inspect and copy the three transcripts to the police department, state police, attorney general, and others. The State denied the requests, claiming that the transcripts constituted "intelligence and investigative information" in a pending criminal matter and were therefore confidential under the Criminal History Record Information Act. MaineToday filed suit against the State, arguing that the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) mandated disclosure of the transcripts as public records and that no exception to their disclosure applied. The superior court affirmed the State's denial of MaineToday's request. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's judgment, holding that the E-9-1-1 transcripts, as redacted pursuant to 25 Me. Rev. Stat. 2929(2)-(3), were public records subject to disclosure under the FOAA. View "MaineToday Media, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

In 2010, the district court issued a divorce judgment awarding Mother and Father shared parental rights and responsibilities of their child and granting Mother primary residence of the child. In 2011, Father filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment, claiming that the child, who had been living in a truck with his mother, had not had a stable living environment following the divorce and that returning him to a living arrangement in the truck could have significant negative effects on the child's well-being. The court granted Father's motion to modify and awarded him primary residence of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court evaluated the evidence with the best interest of the child in mind, and therefore did not err or abuse its discretion. View "Bulkley v. Bulkley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, criminal restraint, and violation of a condition of release. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence related to the events that preceded Defendant's arrest; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding the methods the police used to compile a photographic array that was shown to the victim; and (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by improperly vouching for the victim's credibility during closing argument because, viewed in context, the prosecutor's statement was not witness-vouching or otherwise improper. View "State v. Hassan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, alleging, among other things, that the Diocese improperly concealed its knowledge of improper interactions with minors by Plaintiff's abuser. After the Supreme Court remanded the case, the only claim against the Diocese was the intentional tort of fraudulent concealment. Upon remand, the superior court granted summary judgment for the Diocese. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court correctly concluded that Plaintiff failed to set forth facts that could establish a breach of any duty to disclose a known material fact; and (2) consequently, Plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing that the Diocese had fraudulently concealed material facts that, if known by Plaintiff or his parents, would have prevented Plaintiffs injuries. View "Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland" on Justia Law

Parents' two young children were removed from their care and placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services due to Parents' abuse and neglect. The day before a scheduled contested hearing on the Department's termination petition, Parents appeared in court and represented through counsel that they intended to consent to the termination. After an individual colloquy with each parent, the district court found that Parents had voluntarily and knowingly executed their consent and ordered the termination of their parental rights. Parents appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Parents' parental rights to their two children, as the court rationally could have found clear and convincing evidence to support its findings that Parents' consents were executed voluntarily and knowingly. View "In re H.C. " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated attempted murder, aggravated criminal mischief, reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, eluding an officer, and theft by unauthorized taking or transfer. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred when it failed, sua sponte, to instruct the jury on self-defense and voluntary intoxication, and (2) the trial court erred when it did not conduct a colloquy directly with him to confirm he knowingly and voluntarily chose not to testify. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived jury instructions on self-defense and intoxication, and therefore, the trial court did not commit obvious error by not instructing on those defenses; and (2) Defendant waived his right to testify, and therefore, the trial court committed no error here by confirming the election not to testify through counsel. View "State v. Ford" on Justia Law