Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of gross sexual assault, two counts of aggravated assault, and other charges. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court (1) did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial by denying his motion for sanctions and a continuance based on the State’s late disclosure of the victim’s medical records; (2) did not violate Defendant’s right of confrontation when it admitted a recorded interview of the victim; and (3) did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial by precluding him from calling two late disclosed witnesses not included on the witness list described to the jury. View "State v. Gagne" on Justia Law

Three individuals were passengers in a vehicle driven by Kristina Lowe. Lowe negligently caused the vehicle to crash, and Rebecca Mason and Logan Dam died from injuries they sustained. At the time of the accident, Lowe was a resident at the home of her mother, Melissa Stanley. Stanley had a personal auto insurance policy issued by Amica that provided for $300,000 in liability coverage. The Estates brought wrongful death actions against Lowe, and the parties stipulated to the entry of judgments against Lowe in favor of the Estates in the amount of one million dollars. The Estates then filed reach-and-apply actions against Amica seeking to apply insurance money from Stanley’s policy to the judgments against Lowe. The superior court concluded that the Estates could not reach and apply insurance money from Stanley’s policy toward satisfaction of the judgments against Lowe because the “regular use” exclusion in the policy applied to preclude coverage for Lowe’s negligent use of the car. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the regular use exclusion in Stanley’s policy applied to preclude coverage in this case. View "Estate of Mason v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2014, the City Council of South Portland enacted an ordinance prohibiting the bulk loading of cure oil on marine tank vessels in South Portland. In 2015, the Portland Pipeline Corporation and American Waterways Operators (PPLC) sued the City of South Portland and its Code Enforcement Officer in federal court, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The complaint requested only nonmonetary relief. The City notified the Maine Municipal Association Property & Casualty Pool (Pool), which provides liability coverage to the City and its public officials, of the lawsuit and requested a defense, which the Pool declined to provide. The City then brought this action alleging breach of the duty to defend. The superior court granted summary judgment for the Pool, concluding that the Pool had no duty to defend because the complaint requested only declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages, and therefore, there was no potential that the City could be liable for damages within the scope of coverage. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on different grounds, holding that the Pool had no duty to defend because any potential damages would be excluded from coverage. View "City of South Portland v. Maine Municipal Association Property & Casualty Pool" on Justia Law

Aleshia Diviney was injured when she slipped and fell on ice outside of her dormitory, located on the University of Southern Maine (USM) Gorham campus. Diviney filed a complaint alleging premises liability against USM, the University of Maine System (UMS), and the State. UMS moved for summary judgment, asserting untimely notice. The superior court granted summary judgment for UMS, concluding that Diviney did not file notice satisfying the statutory requirements until after the 180-day deadline had passed and that Diviney could not show “good cause” to excuse her failure to timely file notice. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the grant of summary judgment was proper because the question of “good cause” did not present genuine issues of material fact, and the court properly applied the language of Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 8107 to the facts in the record. View "Diviney v. University of Maine System" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff was terminated from his employment from Bath Iron Works (BIW), Plaintiff grieved the termination. The Local S7 Union Grievance Committee voted not to arbitrate the grievance. Thereafter, represented by Attorney John R. Lemieux, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Union and BIW, alleging breach of the collective bargaining agreement and discrimination. The magistrate judge issued a recommended decision granting a summary judgment in favor of BIW and the Union. The superior court affirmed the magistrate judge’s recommended decision, and the court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff then filed this action against Lemieux, alleging legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Lemieux, concluding that Plaintiff failed to put forth prima facie evidence of causation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was proper because Plaintiff failed to put forth prima facie evidence of causation to support his claims. View "Brooks v. Lemieux" on Justia Law

Father was awarded sole legal custody of his daughter (Daughter) in 2006. In 2010, Father arranged for Daughter to live with his stepmother (Stepmother). Stepmother was subsequently appointed Daughter’s full, permanent guardian. Approximately four years later, Father filed a petition to terminate the guardianship, alleging that Stepmother had denied him normal contact rights with Daughter. After a hearing, the court denied Father’s petition to terminate the guardianship. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the judgment denying Father’s petition to terminate the guardianship, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s denial of Father’s petition; but (2) remanded the case for the court to reconsider the portion of its order requiring Father to pay guardian ad litem fees as a sanction, holding that several aspects of the court’s order in this case compromised the Court’s ability to undertake meaningful review. View "In re Guardianship of Alisha K. Golodner" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals concerned two superior court judgments addressing issues on abutting properties - Mary’s Store and the Bus Lot - that Appellant owned in Kittery. Appellant appealed from a judgment finding him in contempt for violating a procedural order for failure to remove a burnt bus from the Mary’s Store property and challenged the court’s affirmance of the Kittery Town Council’s finding that the Mary’s Store structure constitutes a dangerous building pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 17, 2851 and ordering that it be demolished. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed both judgments, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in finding Appellant in contempt for violating the procedural order; and (2) the Town Council’s decision that the Mary’s Store building was dangerous was supported by substantial evidence, and the Town council’s order to demolish the building was not an abuse of discretion. View "Town of Kittery v. Dineen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of unlawful trafficking of scheduled drugs and unlawful possession of scheduled drugs. The court entered judgment on the verdict and ordered the criminal forfeiture of $543 found in Defendant’s possession at the time of his arrest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained after an inventory search despite the officer’s failure to consciously apply the police department’s inventory and towing policy; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded testimony by the arresting officer on the basis that the testimony was hearsay; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion to reopen the evidence; and (4) the trial court did not err in ordering the forfeiture of Defendant’s money. View "State v. Fox" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the parents of two minor daughters. At the time Father filed a complaint for determination of parental rights and responsibilities and child support, the girls were residing with him. The children had been residing with Mother until the month before Father’s filing. In October 2015, the district court entered a parental rights and responsibilities order that awarded Father primary physical residence of the children. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred in considering and relying upon evidence offered in a separate proceeding concerning the same parties. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Mother and vacated the judgment establishing parental rights and responsibilities, holding that the lower court erred in relying on the prior, separate body of evidence absent the consent of the parties or another legitimate evidentiary basis, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Cabral v. L'Heureux" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of operating under the influence (class B). Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude as irrelevant the finding of an administrative hearing examiner that Defendant’s Intoxilyzer test results were unreliable due to improper pre-test observation by police. The trial court excluded the evidence pursuant to Me. R. Evid. 403. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that the probative value of the exclude evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. View "State v. Renfro" on Justia Law