Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court affirming the Town of Kittery Planning Board’s approval of a site plan application for development of a hotel on Route 1. The court held (1) the Board’s finding that a pitched roof for the building was not practicable was supported by substantial evidence, and the Board was authorized to approve a flat-roof design under the circumstances; (2) regarding the height of the building, the Board did not err in its application of the zoning ordinance’s height restrictions; and (3) the Board’s decision regarding the roof design and building height did not amount to a variance. View "Balano v. Town of Kittery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the Maine Public Utilities Commission approving a stipulation regarding Efficiency Maine Trust’s Third Triennial Plan for energy efficiency, holding that the Commission did not err in interpreting and applying the relevant statutes.The Conservation Law Foundation appealed from the Commission’s order approving the stipulation, arguing that the order and the terms of the stipulation disregarded statutory mandates set forth in the Efficiency Maine Trust Act. See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 35-A, 10101-10123. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Commission’s order and the stipulation did not violate statutory mandates for electric energy efficiency or the statutory mandate to assess each natural gas utility an amount to capture all maximum achievable cost-effective energy efficiency savings. View "Conservation Law Foundation v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from a judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of operating under the influence and criminal mischief, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting an Intoxilyzer test result because the State failed to comply with technical requirements for the admission of the Intoxilyzer test result. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the State proved the requirements of paragraphs H and I of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, 2431(2), and therefore, the court did not abue its discretion or clearly err in admitting the test result; and (2) Appellant’s right to due process was not violated by the State’s late disclosure regarding a State’s witness. View "State v. Williamson" on Justia Law

In this divorce case, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the motion court, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned Husband for disregarding his discovery obligations. Wife had filed a motion for sanctions based on Father’s continued noncompliance with discovery requests and orders. The motion court found that Husband had largely not complied with discovery orders and granted Wife’s motion. After the district court granted the divorce and divided the marital property, Husband appealed, arguing that the motion court’s sanctions against him resulted in an unjust division of property. Wife, in turn, filed a motion for sanctions alleging that Husband’s filings on appeal violated the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment and declined to issue sanctions under the circumstances. View "Lentz v. Lentz" on Justia Law

In this dispute concerning the rights and obligations of Appellants pursuant to a pipeline capacity agreement they had with Appellee, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the business and consumer docket denying Appellants’ application to vacate several arbitration awards pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 5938(1)(C). The court held that, contrary to Appellants’ argument on appeal, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority pursuant to the statute because the arbitration awards did not directly contradict the language of the agreement or constitute a manifest disregard for the terms of the agreement. View "XPress Natural Gas, LLC v. Woodland Pulp, LLC" on Justia Law

Wells Fargo appealed from the district court’s judgment dismissing its foreclosure complaint against Defendant as a sanction for pretrial misconduct. After a nontestimonial hearing, the court ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. Wells Fargo moved to alter or amend the judgment to provide for a dismissal without prejudice. The district court denied the motion and maintained the dismissal with prejudice. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case to the district court to conduct a proceeding that comports with the process recently articulated in Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Cope, ___ A.3d ___, issued on April 11, 2017, holding that the process used by the trial court did not entirely follow the procedural steps that a court should take before imposing the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Welch-Gallant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder following a jury trial. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting text messages found in the victim’s cell phone, erred in admitting three photographs of the crime scene in which the victim’s body was visible, and erred by giving the jury what he alleged was a confusing and legally flawed self-defense instruction. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court (1) did not err in admitting the texts because they were relevant, and the State satisfied Me. R. Crim. P. 901’s threshold requirement; (2) informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law, and the instructions were legally accurate; and (3) did not obviously err in admitting the three photographs depicting relevant evidence in this case. View "State v. Marquis" on Justia Law

The district court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that resulted in a criminal complaint charging Defendant with operating under the influence, concluding that a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he ordered Defendant to leave his house in order to complete a traffic stop due to defective license plate lights. The district court concluded (1) the officer did not have probable cause to suspect any criminal activity, and no exigent circumstances existed when he ordered Defendant to exit his house; and (2) the officer’s verbal order to come outside amounted to an unlawful seizure of Defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of suppression, holding (1) the police officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant for the crime of failure to stop his vehicle on request or signal of a uniformed law enforcement officer and pursued him immediately and continuously from the scene of the crime into the curtilage of his home; and (2) therefore, the seizure of Defendant did not amount to unlawful seizure or arrest. View "State v. Blier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated an order entered by the trial court suppressing evidence seized from Defendant, his vehicle, and his residence after the court concluded that the warrant authorizing the search and seizure of the evidence was not supported by probable cause. On appeal, the State argued that the information presented in the warrant affidavit was sufficient for the warrant judge to find that there was probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found in Defendant’s car, in his home, and on his person. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that the warrant affidavit provided the necessary substantial basis for the warrant judge’s finding of probable cause. View "State v. Mariner" on Justia Law

Husband appealed from a district court judgment awarding child support and primary residence of the parties’ children to Mother. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment related to the health insurance component of Husband’s child support obligation and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, holding (1) the district court did not err by awarding primary residence of the children to Mother; but (2) the district court committed clear error in its factual findings regarding the calculation of Father’s obligation to pay for the children’s health insurance. View "Pyle v. Pyle" on Justia Law