Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Plaintiff gave birth to a son, she filed a complaint against Merck & Co., Inc. and the United States, alleging that a community health center physician negligently failed to insert into her arm an implant manufactured by Merck that was designed to prevent pregnancy as a result of Merck’s defective applicator. The federal court certified questions of state law to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The Court answered (1) the protection of Maine’s Wrongful Birth statute extends to Merck as a drug manufacturer and distributor; and (2) pursuant to the Wrongful Birth statute, Plaintiff may not recover any damages on her claims against either defendant because of the nature of the procedure she underwent. View "Doherty v. Merck & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The Town of Cumberland applied for site plan review of a proposed development involving Broad Cove Reserve property that it owned. The Town of Cumberland Board of Adjustment and Appeals determined that the Town’s proposed development was permitted within the Low Density Residential district as a municipal use. The Estate of Merrill P. Robbins, which owned land abutting the Broad Cove Reserve property, appealed, arguing that the Town’s development was prohibited under the terms of the relevant ordinance. The superior court affirmed, concluding that the plain language of the ordinance supported the Board of Adjustment and Appeals’ determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the meaning of “municipal use” as used in the ordinance was unambiguous and that the Town’s proposed facility was allowed under the terms of the ordinance. View "Estate of Merrill P. Robbins v. Town of Cumberland" on Justia Law

Gloria Carignan, whose property was bordered by Willow Street - a paper street - filed a complaint against Paul Dumas and Robert Richard, an alleged contractor for Dumas, asserting six causes of action relating to Richard’s use of Willow Street to access Dumas’s parcel of land. Carignan later amended her complaint to seek declaratory judgment. The superior court granted summary judgment for Carignan and denied summary judgment for Dumas. Dumas appealed, arguing that the court erred in interpreting a provision of the Paper Streets Act to apply retrospectively. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed and therefore vacated the entry of summary judgment for Carignan and the denial of summary judgment for Dumas, holding that the court erred in its application of sections 3031 and 3032 of the Paper Streets Act and its finding that Dumas had abandoned any easement to which he might be entitled. Remanded. View "Carignan v. Dumas" on Justia Law

Jessica Lisio and Tammy Thorndike, who lives as a man, began a relationship in 2005 when Lisio’s son, Caden, was one year old. In 2009, Arianna was born to Lisio, who was artificially inseminated. That same year, Lisio and Thorndike registered as domestic partners. In 2012, Thorndike moved out. In 2014, Thorndike filed a complaint for a determination of paternity and parental rights and responsibilities. Thorndike subsequently moved to amend his complaint to allege de facto parenthood. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Thorndike was a de facto parent and then entered a parental rights and responsibilities order that provided for the children’s primary residence to be with Lisio and for the children to have contact with Thorndike on a gradually increasing schedule. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in finding that Thorndike was the de facto parent of Caden and Arianna. View "Thorndike v. Lisio" on Justia Law

Defendant entered conditional guilty pleas to three drug-related crimes. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the information contained in the warrant application to search his home was insufficient to allow a probable cause determination; (2) the court erred in allowing only the State to present evidence at a preliminary hearing that the court considered when denying Defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing; and (3) he made a substantial preliminary showing that entitled him to a Franks hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the trial court correctly denied that part of Defendant’s motion to suppress challenging probable cause; but (2) the hearing conducted by the trial court must be treated as the beginning of a Franks hearing, and therefore, the court erred by holding a hearing that did not allow Defendant to attempt to meet the burden of production necessary for a full Franks hearing. Remanded for the court to hold a full Franks hearing. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In 2012, the probate court appointed Aunt as the guardian of Child and awarded Grandmother rights of contact with Child. In 2015 and 2016, Aunt and Grandmother filed motions relating to the terms of the guardianships and Grandmother’s contact rights. The probate court denied the motions after a hearing. Further, upon Grandmother’s motion, the court found Aunt’s attorney (Attorney) in contempt and imposed sanctions against her. Both Aunt and Attorney appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the order denying Aunt’s motion, holding that there was no error in the court’s factual determinations; but (2) vacated the contempt finding and order of sanctions against Attorney, holding that Grandmother’s motion did not satisfy the procedural requirements of Me. R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(C), and the court did not implement the process required by that rule. View "Guardianship of Isabella Ard" on Justia Law

Attorney Susan Thiem represented Ann Thomas, an allegedly incapacitated person, during this action for appointment of a guardian and conservator. During the proceedings, the probate court issued an order imposing sanctions against Thiem based on a finding that she had “unreasonably interfered” with the discovery process. The sanctions order required Thiem to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney fees. Thiem appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory without reaching the merits, holding that because the court had not yet quantified the amount of any attorney fees and expenses to be paid by Thiem as a sanction, the sanctions order was not a final judgment suitable for appellate review. View "Conservatorship & Guardianship of Ann B. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery. Defendant later admitted to four violations of his probation. The court enrolled Defendant in drug court. After he entered the program, Defendant again violated the conditions of his probation. Following a hearing to determine whether to expel Defendant from the drug court program, the court revoked Defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of five years. Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction review, arguing that his due process and equal protection rights had been violated at the drug court termination hearing. The State moved to dismiss Defendant’s petition based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Me. Rev. Stat. 15, 2121, 2124 expressly barred post-conviction review of a probation revocation. The court denied the State’s motion to dismiss and granted Defendant’s petition for post-conviction review. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition for post-conviction review, holding (1) in this case, the proper path to obtain review is to file a notice of appeal; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in expelling Defendant from drug court and revoking his probation. View "Spinney v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of baiting deer and hunting from an observation stand overlooking deer bait. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the instructions given by the trial court fairly and accurately informed the jury of all necessary elements of the governing law, and therefore, Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial; and (2) statements by the prosecutor during his opening and closing that purported to explain that hunting regulations and statutes were premised on a need to keep a level playing field among hunters were improper, but the error was not plain, nor did the error affect Defendant’s substantial rights or the outcome of the trial. View "State v. Lajoie" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of operating under the influence with one prior conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding testimony that certain chemicals could have resulted in a falsely elevated breath-alcohol test if they were present in Defendant’s system when he took the breath test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the particular factual circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony about the effect of those chemicals on breath-testing equipment and test results produced by that equipment because there was not a sufficient factual foundation to link the testimony with the facts of this case. View "State v. Rourke" on Justia Law