Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty in the trial court to a number of burglaries and thefts committed from nearby residences in the woods near Rome. When Defendant was sentenced, he paid almost an entire agreed amount of restitution for the victims of the burglaries and thefts. In addition, the court ordered Defendant to pay $1,125 to the Maine State Police (MSP) for expenses it incurred when it repaired a woods road it used during the criminal investigation. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of restitution but affirmed the remaining aspects of the judgment of conviction and the related sentence, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the MSP was not a statutorily eligible recipient of restitution. View "State v. Knight" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a petition for judicial review of a Department of Corrections' decision finding him guilty of the disciplinary offense of tattooing. The superior court dismissed Plaintiff’s petition for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. Plaintiff’s appealed, arguing that because he had no funds with which to pay the initial partial filing fee, the court abused its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order dismissing the petition, holding that the court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without making a finding as to Plaintiff’s ability to pay. Remanded. View "Torres v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Day’s Auto Body, Inc. (Day’s Auto) filed a complaint alleging that Town of Medway and Emery Lee and Sons, Inc. (ELS) negligently used vehicles, machinery, and equipment in the course of their response to a fire at Day’s Auto’s shop. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that the Town and ELS were immune from Day’s Auto’s claims pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err when it entered a summary judgment in favor of both the Town and ELS. View "Day's Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two criminal counts. Defendant consented to a deferred disposition in the district court and pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. Following a hearing on the final disposition, the district court stated that the deferred disposition was “unsuccessful” and imposed a sentencing alternative. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred by finding that she inexcusably failed to comply with a term of her agreement based on the State’s argument that Defendant did not complete a psychological evaluation that focused on parenting. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the court erred in finding that Defendant inexcusably failed to comply with the psychological evaluation requirement of the deferred disposition. Remanded. View "State v. Palmer" on Justia Law

Defendants, two cousins, were convicted of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs. Defendants appealed, challenging the trial court’s denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search and during police questioning. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that the warrantless search was valid because neither of the defendants affirmatively denied the officer consent to conduct the search; and (2) the court did not err in concluding that one of the defendant’s statements made while he was in custody but before he was informed of his Miranda rights was admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda. View "State v. Carton" on Justia Law

Ocean Communities Federal Credit Union filed a foreclosure complaint against Guy Roberge and Lisa Pombriant concerning certain residential property. The district court granted a summary judgment for foreclosure and sale in favor of the Credit Union in the amount of $144,998.97, concluding that the Credit Union established its entitlement to a summary judgment as to each element of foreclosure. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the Credit Union’s summary judgment filings failed to establish at least four of the necessary eight elements for a residential foreclosure. Remanded for a trial. View "Ocean Cmtys. Fed. Credit Union v. Roberge" on Justia Law

American Express Bank FSB filed a complaint alleging that Diane Deering owed $22,339.94 in credit card debt. After a trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of American Express in that amount. On appeal, Deering argued that the trial court erred in admitting American Express’s business records pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Specifically, Deering challenged the trial court’s determination that American Express provided the required foundation for admission of the documents. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in admitting the records over Deering’s objections. View "American Express Bank FSB v. Deering" on Justia Law

The Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability filed a report against Probate Judge Robert Nadeau. The Committee alleged that Judge Nadeau violated the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct based on statements he made in a letter to counsel regarding a court proceeding in which he was a party and based on his judge-related Internet and social media activity. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Judge Nadeau committed one actionable violation of the Code based on his statements to counsel. The Court imposed a public censure and reprimand and a thirty-day suspension from the performance of his duties as judge of the Probate Court. View "In re Robert M.A. Nadeau" on Justia Law

After Robert Rossignol was notified that his teaching contract would not be renewed, Rossignol applied to the Maine Public Employees Retirement System (MPERS) for disability retirement benefits. Rossignol alleged that he suffered from depression, anxiety, and panic attacks, which made it impossible for him to perform the duties of his position. The Executive Director’s designee denied Rossignol’s application. The MPERS Board of Trustees affirmed the denial of disability retirement benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rossignol failed to demonstrate that, under the governing statutory standard, he was entitled to disability retirement benefits. View "Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

Claimants, members of the public, brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the public had acquired a prescriptive easement over a parcel of property known as Cedar Beach Road owned by Gables Real Estate LLC. After a bench trial, the superior court entered judgment declaring that the public had acquired a prescriptive easement over Cedar Beach Road. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Claimants failed to establish the element of adversity, and Gables Real Estate established nonacquiescence, thereby defeating Claimants’ action for recognition of a public prescriptive easement as a matter of law. View "Cedar Beach/Cedar Island Supporters, Inc. v. Gables Real Estate LLC" on Justia Law