Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices subpoenaed documents and testimony from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) seeking the names of donors to NOM in order to determine whether NOM had complied with Maine's campaign laws during the 2009 election season. The superior court affirmed the Commission's decision not to vacate or modify the subpoenas. Appellants, including NOM and Stand for Marriage Maine PAC, appealed, contending that the Commission's subpoenas infringed on their right to freedom of association because disclosure would expose NOM's donors to threats, harassment, and reprisal. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding that the record did not support Appellants' constitutional argument. View "Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a commission agreement with Company in 2002 in which Company agreed to pay Plaintiff a commission when Company sold its products to contacts that Plaintiff introduced to Company. Starting in 2004, Company began paying Plaintiff commissions for its sales to a certain contact (Avaya). Company terminated the agreement on the day that Plaintiff served it with a complaint claiming that Company owed him commissions on sales it made to another company. Company continued to sell to Avaya after terminating the agreement but did not pay Plaintiff any commissions on those sales. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint, and the case was tried to a jury on the issue of whether Plaintiff was due commissions resulting from Company's post-termination sales to Avaya. The trial court entered judgment for Company. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded for entry of a judgment in favor of Plaintiff, holding (1) the commission agreement unambiguously required Company to pay commissions to Plaintiff on sales it made to Avaya after Company unilaterally terminated the agreement; and (2) therefore, Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his breach of contract claim. View "McDonald v. Scitec, Inc." on Justia Law

Bernard Quirion, a Canadian citizen, was driving in Quebec when some plywood came off the truck Bryan Veilleux was driving and struck the windshield of Quirion's truck. Quirion sustained serious injuries. Veilleux was employed by S.M. Transport at the time. Quirion and his wife, Nancy Dulac, filed a complaint against Veilleux and S.M. Transport, claiming negligence and loss of consortium. The trial court determined that the laws of Canada and Quebec would apply to the determination of damages. Appellants filed an interlocutory appeal, contending that Maine law should govern determination of their damages. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that this interlocutory appeal was not subject to an exception to the final judgment rule and that the final judgment rule barred the Court's reaching the merits of the appeal. View "Quirion v. Veilleux" on Justia Law

Ralph Nader, a candidate in the 2004 election, filed a civil complaint along with four of his presidential electors (collectively, Nader) in 2009 against the Maine Democratic Party and several other entities and individuals involved in the election (collectively, MDP). The complaint alleged that MDP directed the filing of two challenges to Nader's candidacy. MDP filed a special motion to dismiss pursuant to Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, which permits defendants to file a special motion to dismiss civil claims against them that are based on the defendants' exercise of the constitutional right to petition. The superior court granted the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for consideration of the special motion to dismiss pursuant to a newly announced standard for applying the anti-SLAPP statute. On remand, the superior court concluded that Nader had satisfied the newly announced standard and denied MDP's special motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the entirety of Nader's complaint against MDP, holding that the motion to dismiss Nader's complaint pursuant to Maine's anti-SLAPP statute should have been granted. View "Nader v. Me. Democratic Party" on Justia Law

After Father tested positive three times for marijuana use in violation of conditions of probation, the Department of Health and Human Resources removed Father's son, T.B., from Father's care. Father was incarcerated for a third time during a reunification period with T.B., and the Department subsequently filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. Father moved for substitution of court-appointed counsel, which the district court denied on the grounds that the trial was to start in two days. After a three-week continuance, the trial was held, and the court terminated Father's parental rights. Father appealed, contending that he was denied due process when the district court did not, on its own initiative, inform him that he could proceed without counsel after denying his motion to dismiss his current counsel or his implicit motion to appoint new counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

Eagle Rental was a licensed used car dealer. Daniel Bickford and his wife were the company's vice president and treasurer. In 2003, Eagle Rental began purchasing Cadillac Escalades and trading them in to dealers for newer models. The Bickfords were unable to sell their Escalade inventory for several years and drove the Escalades on personal business. The tax assessor assessed use taxes on four of those Escalades. The business and consumer docket affirmed the assessment. Eagle Rental appealed, arguing it did not owe use tax because the Bickfords operated the Escalades with dealer plates for their personal use in accordance with Maine's dealer plate statute. Read together, the dealer plate and taxation statutes provide that dealers and their immediate families may use dealer plates on vehicles in a dealer's inventory for their personal use without being subject to use tax until the vehicles to which the plates are attached are withdrawn from inventory. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Eagle Rental did not meet its burden of proving that the Escalades were not withdrawn from inventory, and accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded they were subject to use tax. View "Eagle Rental, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were divorced in 2005. In 2008, the parties stipulated to a modification of the divorce judgment. The modified divorce judgment required Defendant to pay Plaintiff weekly spousal and child support and to file a motion to modify his child support obligation within thirty days of becoming employed. Plaintiff later filed a motion for contempt. The district court concluded that Defendant had violated the divorce judgment as modified because he owed past-due child support and because he had failed to move the court to modify his child support obligation after becoming employed. The court then found Defendant in contempt, ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff's attorney fees and ordered Defendant be incarcerated for sixty days, allowing Defendant to purge himself of contempt by paying the $46,272 he owed within sixty days. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the court's order of coercive imprisonment, holding that Defendant's coercive imprisonment could not be made conditional upon his payment of a sum that included amounts Defendant owed for a compensatory fine and newly imposed attorney fees; and (2) affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "Dostanko v. Dostanko" on Justia Law

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the Mother and Father of two minor children. After a termination hearing, the district court found the Department had made diligent and reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify the family but that termination of parental rights as to both parents was in the best interests of the children. Both parents appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate the parents' due process rights by issuing an order terminating their parental rights before receiving their post-trial briefs and by admitting into evidence statements that one of the parents' children made to the court without counsel for the parents being present; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that the parents were unfit and that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of unlawful sexual contact. The Supreme Court vacated the sentences imposed on Defendant. On remand and after a hearing, the superior court imposed consecutive sentences on each of the counts for an overall sentence of twenty-seven years in prison. Defendant challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing that his overall sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that, by imposing a sentence that included twenty-seven unsuspended years of incarceration, the superior court exceeded its discretion because the overall sentence was far out of line with sentences of other defendants convicted of unlawful sexual contact. View "State v. Stanislaw" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of assault and refusing to submit to arrest. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that he was competent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at the competency hearing - namely, Defendant's own testimony - was sufficient to support the court's determination, by a preponderance of the evidence made after the competency hearing, that Defendant was competent to stand trial; (2) the trial court did not err in failing to reconsider Defendant's competency during the trial itself; and (3) Defendant's remaining considerations were without merit. View "State v. Nickerson" on Justia Law