Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jon and Winifred Prime brought suit against Dawn Harlor stemming from a dispute over the Primes’ right to use a dock according to an easement Harlor had granted the the Primes. At all relevant times, Harlor was insured by Amica Mutual Insurance Company under a homeowner’s insurance policy providing that Amica would defend Harlor against claims that may result in covered damages. Amica denied Harlor’s request that Amica provide a defense in the underlying suit based on its conclusion that the suit could not result in covered damages. After Harlor settled the suit with the Primes, Harlor brought suit against Amica alleging that Amica breached the policy by failing to defend her in the underlying lawsuit. The superior court granted summary judgment for Amica, concluding that any damages that might have resulted from the underlying suit would not be covered by Harlor’s policies and, therefore, did not give rise to a duty to defend. The Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for the entry of summary judgment in favor of Harlor, holding that Amica breached its duty to defend. Remanded for further proceedings regarding Amica’s duty to indemnify Harlor for any or all of the amount that she paid to settle the underlying action. View "Harlor v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, Wife instituted divorce proceedings against Husband on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The district court divided the parties’ assets and debts, awarded Wife spousal support, and denied Wife’s requests for retroactive interim support and attorney fees. Thereafter, Wife filed a motion purporting to request further findings of fact and conclusions of law, a new trial, and alteration or amendment of the judgment. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Wife’s motion did not comply with the requirements of Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b), and therefore, the court did not err by denying relief. View "Eremita v. Marchiori" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder for the death of his wife, who died after several days of beatings and injuries inflicted on her by Defendant while her children were present. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence for the court to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Defendant’s actions, including his abuse of his wife over days, along with his delay in seeking medical assistance, caused his wife’s death; and (2) Defendant acted with a depraved indifference to the value of human life in killing his wife. View "State v. Saenz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs. Defendant appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of drugs that the arresting officer found on and near Defendant when he was arrested. Specifically, Defendant contended that the police lacked probable cause for his warrantless arrest because, inter alia, the stop for Defendant’s failure to use a turn signal was pretextual and the officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s stop and arrest were lawful, and therefore, the superior court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Lagasse" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of solicitation of a child to commit a prohibited act. The trial court imposed a suspended jail term of six months and one year of probation. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to apply the affirmative defense of renunciation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by failing to find Defendant not guilty based on the affirmative defense of renunciation; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction generally. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

NDC Communications, LLC and Kenneth Carle III engaged in a complex set of agreements in the context of the development of a piece of land. When the parties’ working relationship broke down, NDC filed a complaint asserting that it was owed funds from Carle, and Carle counterclaimed seeking contract remedies and other relief. The trial court ultimately entered judgment enforcing a mechanic’s lien against Carle in the amount of $336,681.24. Carle appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court failed to provide him a credit due of approximately $25,000, rendering the judgment against him inaccurate. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Carle’s due process rights were not violated by the post-trial procedures employed by the court; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s judgment, including its determination of damages. View "NDC Communications, LLC v. Carle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of domestic violence assault. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) excluding the prospective testimony of three of the victim’s former romantic partners regarding her alleged propensity to make false accusations when relationships ended against her wishes; (2) denying Defendant’s motion to exclude audio recordings and photographs made by the victim on the ground that their admission violated the best evidence rule; and (3) declining to grant a mistrial as a result of statements made by the prosecutor during the State’s closing and rebuttal arguments. View "State v. Maderios" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of gross sexual assault, four counts of impersonating a public servant, and two counts of engaging a prostitute. The convictions were based on Defendant’s pretending to be a police officer in order to induce three of four women who were engaged in prostitution to have sex with him as he demanded. Defendant appealed, arguing that the indictment and jury verdict form did not adequately distinguish among separate allegations involving each victim, in violation of his due process rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the constitutional issues that Defendant now asserts were waived. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was injured when the car she was driving was rear-ended by an underinsured motorist, claimed uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and medical payments coverage under two State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company policies. An arbitration panel found that the accident caused Plaintiff $378,000 in damages, $125,000 of which were identified as medical costs. The parties' dispute regarding the extent of coverage available to Plaintiff proceeded to trial. The superior court determined that only one of the State Farm policies covered Plaintiff, deferred to the arbitration award as to Plaintiffs' actual damages, established the amount owed by State Farm, and reduced the arbitration award accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the superior court correctly determined that only one of the policies covered Plaintiff, but (2) the court’s decision regarding the amount due under that policy was in error. Remanded. View "Graf v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In Petrin v. Town of Scarborough, the Supreme Judicial Court, in considering challenges to increases in municipal property taxes for parcels located in neighborhoods in the Town of Scarborough, concluded that the Town’s practice of undervaluing separate but abutting lots held in common ownership resulted in discriminatory tax treatment. In this separate action, the Court addressed similar challenges brought by owners of residential waterfront properties located in an area of Scarborough not at issue in Petrin. Plaintiffs appealed a judgment determining that they did not have standing to pursue one of their challenges but otherwise affirming the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review’s denial of their tax abatement petitions. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to pursue their challenges; (2) the Board did not err in concluding that a partial revaluation conducted by the Town was proper; but (3) the Board erred by denying Plaintiffs’ requests for abatement based on the Town’s practice of undervaluing abutting lots, which resulted in discriminatory assessments. View "Angell Family 2012 Prouts Neck Trusts v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law