Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2008, a divorce decree issued pursuant to the agreement of Husband and Wife requiring Husband to pay Wife monthly spousal support of $3,000 until he turned sixty years old. Federal law went into effect shortly before the entry of the divorce judgment, pursuant to which Husband’s mandatory retirement age increased from age sixty to sixty-five. Husband continued working after turning sixty. Wife filed a motion to modify spousal support, arguing that, at the time the divorce judgment was entered, she expected that Husband would not work beyond age sixty. The district court granted the motion based on its determination that the modification was warranted by a substantial change in circumstances after the divorce decree was issued. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the spousal support provisions of the divorce judgment so as to maintain the previous amount of Husband’s spousal support obligation until he turns sixty-five years old. View "Savage v. Savage" on Justia Law

After acquiring a parcel of oceanfront property, Osprey Landing, LLC purchased a title insurance policy from First American Title Insurance Company. In connection with litigation with neighboring landowners, the subject property’s previous owner executed affidavits and a deposition that Osprey claimed created the risk of a future public prescriptive easement claim adverse to Osprey’s title. Osprey sent a request to First American invoking title insurance coverage asking First American to take some action to either perfect osprey’s title or compensate Osprey for this perceived title defect. First American declined, and Osprey filed suit to enforce First American’s purported duty to defend and indemnify Osprey. The superior court granted First American’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Miller’s statements did not create a “triggering event” requiring First American to take any action, and no obligation was imposed on First American under these circumstances to preemptively indemnify Osprey. View "Osprey Landing, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Two days after the birth of Child, the district court granted a preliminary protection order as against both Mother and Father, and Child was placed in foster care. The Department of Health and Human Services later filed a petition for termination of parental rights. After a contested hearing on the petition as to Mother, the court issued a judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights, finding that Mother was unable to protect Child from jeopardy and was unable to take responsibility for him and would not be able to do either within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs. The court further found that termination was in Child’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court’s findings and ultimate best interest determination were supported by the record and did not reflect an abuse of discretion. View "In re Kenneth S." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating under the influence. After a trial, the court concluded that the jury was genuinely deadlocked and sua sponte declared a mistrial due to manifest necessity. Defendant then moved to dismiss the criminal complaint against him on double jeopardy grounds and on the grounds that the prosecutor had committed misconduct. The court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions did not bar a second prosecution and that there had been no prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial due to a genuinely deadlocked jury; and (2) Defendant’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were unfounded. View "State v. Jandreau" on Justia Law