Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2015, Jennifer Kilton filed a complaint for divorce from Darin Kilton. The trial court held an uncontested final hearing, which Darin did not attend. The court subsequently granted the parties’ divorce, adopting the order drafted by Jennifer’s party. Darin did not file any post-judgment motions. Darin timely filed this appeal but initiated no effort to create an alternative record of the unrecorded final hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis to grant relief on appeal because the trial court was not given the opportunity to address the concerns Darin raised for the first time on appeal and because there was no record of the evidence presented to the trial court. View "Kilton v. Kilton" on Justia Law

Chadwick-BaRoss Inc., a business located in the City of Westbrook, is a heavy-equipment dealer that sells equipment at retail and occasionally leases equipment to customers. After receiving a 2012 personal property tax declaration from Chadwick-BaRoss, the City asked the company to include additional equipment that was held in the physical possession of others pursuant to lease agreements. Chadwick-BaRoss responded that those items were available for immediate sale and were therefore exempt from the personal property tax. When the City and its tax assessor (together, Defendants) issued a supplemental tax bill, Chadwick-BaRoss filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not owe personal property taxes on the equipment that it leased to others. The superior court entered summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that the equipment did not fall clearly within the personal property tax exemption for stock-in-trade. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the leased equipment was not held or kept in stock by Chadwick-BaRoss for sale or rental and was thus properly subject to taxation. View "Chadwick-BaRoss, Inc. v. City of Westbrook" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of thirteen hunting, fishing, and firearm-related offenses. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction on five of the thirteen counts challenged by Defendant; (2) the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss two of the charges based on an accord and satisfaction that was offered to the court due to the lack of clarity regarding the validity of the accord and satisfaction offered; (3) Defendant was not prejudiced when he was not provided physical access to the actual fish in the State’s possession prior to trial; and (4) a misstatement of fact made by the State during its closing argument did not prejudice Defendant. View "State v. McBreairty" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kevin Strong and Defendants Rebecca Brakeley and Jonathan Bausman were all physicians licensed to practice medicine in Maine. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging that certain negative statements made by them on a credentials verification system’s questionnaires caused St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center to deny him staff privileges. Plaintiff asserted claims for defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship and sought punitive damages. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they were entitled to absolute immunity for their statements pursuant to 24 Me. Rev. Stat. 2511. The superior court agreed and entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendants’ answers to the questionnaires “constituted eligible reports by eligible reporters made for the purpose of assisting a board, authority, or committee in carrying out its statutory duties as a matter of law within the plain meaning of section 2511(3).” View "Strong v. Brakeley" on Justia Law

After entering conditional guilty pleas to several counts of an indictment and a bench trial on aggravating factors only, Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs (Class A) and one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgments of conviction, holding (1) in this case, the State was required to prove specific weights of actual heroin, not mixtures or compounds containing some amount of heroin; and (2) the State did not prove the weight of the actual heroin involved. Remanded. View "State v. Pinkham" on Justia Law

Benjamin Yap filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Alyssa Vinton on behalf of himself and the parties’ child. A temporary protection was granted awarding Yap temporary sole parental rights and responsibilities. Yap subsequently filed a complaint for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The court issued a protection from abuse order that shared parental rights and responsibilities and awarded Yap primary residence of the child. After a hearing for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities, Vinton submitted a proposed order for the court’s consideration. The court adopted, in its entirety and with one change, Vinton’s proposed parental rights order and findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yap appealed, contending that the judge erred by adopting the language of Vinton’s proposed order verbatim and by not exercising independent judgment. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the judgment, holding that the trial court’s findings were not the result of careful judicial deliberation and the exercise of independent judgment. View "Yap v. Vinton" on Justia Law

Benjamin Yap filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Alyssa Vinton on behalf of himself and the parties’ child. A temporary protection was granted awarding Yap temporary sole parental rights and responsibilities. Yap subsequently filed a complaint for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The court issued a protection from abuse order that shared parental rights and responsibilities and awarded Yap primary residence of the child. After a hearing for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities, Vinton submitted a proposed order for the court’s consideration. The court adopted, in its entirety and with one change, Vinton’s proposed parental rights order and findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yap appealed, contending that the judge erred by adopting the language of Vinton’s proposed order verbatim and by not exercising independent judgment. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the judgment, holding that the trial court’s findings were not the result of careful judicial deliberation and the exercise of independent judgment. View "Yap v. Vinton" on Justia Law

Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting (MFBH) is a Maine ballot question committee that was a proponent of November 2014 Ballot Question 1 concerning bear hunting and trapping. As early as September 2013, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife used agency resources to communicate with the public in opposition to Question 1. MFBH filed a complaint against the Department alleging that the Department’s campaign activities constituted an ultra vires expenditure of public funds. In November 2014, Maine voters defeated the ballot question. The Department subsequently filed a motion to dismiss MFBH’s complaint on the grounds of mootness and standing. In March 2015, the superior court dismissed the complaint as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case is moot and that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. View "Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting (MFBH) is a Maine ballot question committee that was a proponent of November 2014 Ballot Question 1 concerning bear hunting and trapping. As early as September 2013, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife used agency resources to communicate with the public in opposition to Question 1. MFBH filed a complaint against the Department alleging that the Department’s campaign activities constituted an ultra vires expenditure of public funds. In November 2014, Maine voters defeated the ballot question. The Department subsequently filed a motion to dismiss MFBH’s complaint on the grounds of mootness and standing. In March 2015, the superior court dismissed the complaint as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case is moot and that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. View "Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law

On February 17, 2012, John Deschenes fell down stairs at Sanford City Hall. On August 13, 2012, 178 days after his fall, Deschenes appeared at City Hall and spoke to the Finance Assistant and the Finance Director regarding his fall and medical treatment. On September 1, 2012, 197 days after his accident, Deschenes provided the City Manager with written notice of a claim against the City based on his fall. On January 28, 2014, Deschenes filed a complaint with the superior court. The City moved for summary judgment, asserting that Deschenes’s written notice was sent after the Maine Tort Claims Act’s 180-day deadline for submitting a written notice of claim against a governmental entity. The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Deschenes failed to substantially comply with the notice requirement of the Act. Deschenes appealed, arguing that he substantially complied with the statute because the City was aware of his accident and was not prejudiced by his failure to file a written notice before the 180-day deadline. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a person cannot substantially comply with the Act if he provides only oral notice of his claim. View "Deschenes v. City of Sanford" on Justia Law