Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his son. At the commencement of the termination hearing, Father told the court that he was unwell and that he wanted to reschedule the hearing. The court allowed Father to leave and told him the hearing would be rescheduled if Father filed a doctor’s note. Father never filed a doctor’s note and no rehearing was scheduled. The court subsequently terminated Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not violate Father’s right to due process when it conducted the termination hearing in Father’s absence. View "In re Adden B." on Justia Law

In 2012, GNP Parent, LLC entered into a sales agreement to purchase compressed natural gas from Xpress Natural Gas, LLC as fuel for the Great Northern Paper Mill. Cate Street Capital, Inc., the corporate owner of GNP, guaranteed the amounts payable by GNP up to $1,500,000. GNP failed to make the required payments for natural gas, and an arbitrator found Cate Street liable to Xpress for $1,500,000 on the guarantee. Xpress applied to the superior court to confirm the arbitration award. Cate Street and GNP moved to vacate the award in part, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding Xpress $1,500,000 in damages on the guarantee of payments. The superior court entered a judgment confirming the award and denying the motion to vacate the award. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in this case because his interpretation was rationally derived from the sales agreement. View "Xpress Natural Gas, LLC v. Cate St. Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and arson. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder. During the proceedings, the trial court excluded GPS data and handwritten notes from the State’s case-in-chief due to hearsay problems or discovery violations. The court, however, stated that it would revisit its ruling regarding the admissibility of the evidence should it be necessary for impeachment purposes. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings violated his right to a fair trial by preventing him from presenting evidence contrary to the facts indicated in the excluded evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court’s rulings excluding the evidence at issue from use in the State’s case-in-chief were not an abuse of discretion and did not violate Defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. View "State v. Poulin" on Justia Law

Stephen Cushing and Ann Cushing were divorced in 2011. In 2014, Stephen filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment’s child contact schedule and child support provision. In 2015, due to Stephen’s continued failure to comply with court orders, the court dismissed Stephen’s motion with prejudice and established a procedure to determine the final amount of the attorney fee award to Ann. Stephen appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal was untimely and that Stephen failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was entitled to an extension of time for filing the appeal. View "Cushing v. Cushing" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was driving her car when she was struck from behind from an underinsured motorist. Plaintiff claimed uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) coverage and medical payments under two State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company policies and filed a complaint against State Farm seeking coverage pursuant to both policies. The parties agreed to arbitrate the amount of damages caused by the accident but to have a court decide any issues relating to the amount of UM/UIM coverage available to Plaintiff through the policies. An arbitration panel found that the accident caused Plaintiff damages of $378,000. Thereafter, the superior court concluded that Plaintiff had UM/UIM coverage under only one of the State Farm policies, deferred to the arbitration award as to Plaintiff’s actual damages, determined that she was entitled to $250,000 from State Farm, and reduced the arbitration award accordingly. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the superior court did not err in concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to coverage under only one of the State Farm policies but erred in deciding calculating the amount due under that policy. Remanded. View "Graf v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The two defendants in this case - James Simmons and Frederick Campbell - were each charged with and indicted for two counts of arson. Simmons filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of search warrants, arguing that the search warrants were not supported by probable cause. The superior court granted the motion and suppressed evidence of cellular telephone records seized pursuant to the warrants. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the affidavits established probable cause for the State to seize those portions of Simmons’s cell phone records relating to historical cell site location data for a certain day; and (2) the remaining aspects of the suppression order as to Simmons and the order in its entirety as to Campbell were without error. View "State v. Simmons" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of murder. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that he had been deprived of due process by being tried jointly with his co-defendant and by statements made by his co-defendant’s counsel. Specifically, he argued that his co-defendant’s counsel had impermissibly commented upon Defendant’s decision not to testify and his race. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding (1) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion to sever his trial from his co-defendant’s; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial as to the silence-related comments; and (3) the trial court properly determined that three race-related comments were improper but that the comments had not affected Defendant’s substantial rights. View "State v. Daluz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied to the State Harness Racing Commission to renew his driver/trainer license for horse harness racing in Maine. The Commission denied the application because Plaintiff had previously been denied a license by a racing authority in New York. The Commission based its conclusion that the reciprocal disciplinary action provision of the harness racing licensing statute prohibited the issuance of the Maine license even though New York had subsequently rescinded its license denial. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the statute. View "Mosher v. State Harness Racing Comm’n" on Justia Law

After taking maternity leave, Plaintiff returned to work. She quit, however, after disputes between her and Employer arose over a change to her schedule that made her childcare situation more difficult, and over an appropriate place for her to pump breast milk at work. The Bureau of Unemployment Compensation denied Plaintiff’s claim for unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor’s Division of Administrative Hearings affirmed. The Unemployment Insurance Commission affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff “was not able and available for full-time work” within the meaning of Me. Rev. Stat. 26, 1192(3). The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in its construction of the statute and that its decision was not contrary to public policy. View "Cheney v. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her child. After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights, determining by clear and convincing evidence that the Department proved at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother appealed, challenging the court’s findings and asserting that she was denied effective assistance of counsel during the termination proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court’s judgment was supported by the evidence; and (2) Mother failed to present a prima facie case of attorney ineffectiveness. View "In re Aliyah M." on Justia Law