Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Mother filed a motion to modify a parental rights and responsibilities order requesting recalculation of child support. By agreement, the district court reduced Mother’s child support obligation to $100 per week. Subsequently, following a hearing, the court issued an order that left in place Mother’s $100 weekly child support obligation. In 2015, Mother filed a notice of appeal, contending that the court miscalculated the child support due. The Supreme Court dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within twenty-one days after the docketing of the court’s additional findings. View "Flores v. Otis" on Justia Law

Child was born to Mother while Mother was married to Father. Father was not Child’s biological father. Mother and Father subsequently divorced. Father later filed a motion for determination of de facto parent status in both a child protection case and a post-judgment motion in the divorce action. The district court consolidated the motions for hearing and determined that C.L. was not a de facto parent for purposes of the child protection proceeding, nor was he a de facto parent for purposes of the family matter. Father appealed the district court’s judgment on both motions. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) dismissed the appeal from the child protection order because the appeal was interlocutory; and (2) affirmed the judgment in the family matter, as Father failed to establish the first element of de facto parenthood. View "C.L. v. L.L." on Justia Law

Father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his two children after the district court found, by clear and convincing evidence, all four statutory grounds of parental unfitness and that termination was in the children’s best interests so that they may be adopted. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it determined that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests without considering a potential permanency planning option not presented to the court; and (2) properly engaged in the statutorily required best interest analysis. View "In re J.I." on Justia Law

After a nonjury trial, the trial court convicted Defendant of operating while his license was suspended or revoked and sentenced him to thirty days in jail. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the laws of the “State of Maine” against him and that Maine’s law requiring each driver to hold a valid driver’s license is facially unconstitutional because it violates a purported fundamental right to travel. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) state jurisdiction over an individual extends to those present within the physical bounds of the state; and (2) the state may, as a valid exercise of its police power, place limitations on the operation of motor vehicles on the state’s roads. View "State v. Pelletier" on Justia Law

Brian Bailey filed a Me. R. Civ. P. 80C appeal from a decision of the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) setting Bailey’s 2014 elver fishing quota at four pounds. The basis for the quota was confirmed on March 31, 2014 by issuance of a 2014 elver transaction card. No appeal was filed within thirty days after Bailey’s receipt of the 2014 elver transaction card. After the close of the 2014 elver season on May 31, 2014, Bailey filed this appeal on July 10, 2014. The superior court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the issues in this case present an exception to the jurisprudence that would ordinarily require the Court to dismiss this appeal for mootness; and (2) DMR’s issuance of Bailey’s 2014 elver transaction card constituted a final agency action, and therefore, Bailey’s appeal was not timely filed. View "Bailey v. Dep’t of Marine Res." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of elevated aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve twenty-two years in prison. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The superior court denied Appellant’s petition for post-conviction review, concluding that Appellant received “reasonably effective assistance” of counsel. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s attorney provided reasonably effective assistance as required by Strickland v. Washington. View "Manley v. State" on Justia Law

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP filed a complaint for foreclosure against Scott and Kristina Greenleaf. Bank of America, N.A. (the Bank) was substituted for BAC after the entities merged. After a trial, the court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment based on the Bank’s lack of standing. On remand, the district court dismissed without prejudice the action due to the Bank’s standing defect. Scott appealed, arguing that the court was compelled to enter judgment in his favor because the Court vacated the Bank’s judgment after a completed trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the district court properly disposed of the case by entering a dismissal without prejudice. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf" on Justia Law

After almost five years of litigation, the probate court issued its final judgment in the formal testate proceeding concerning the estate of Mildred D. MacComb. James Richman appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected Richman’s brief and his amended brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Richman asked that the Court reconsider the rejection of his amended brief and the dismissal of his appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court denied the motion for reconsideration, as Richman failed to comply with the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure and a direct order from the Court. View "In re Estate of MacComb" on Justia Law

In 1973, the City of South Portland issued a variance to Kay Loring that brought her parcel of land, which was previously nonconforming, into dimensional conformity. For purposes of land use regulation, Loring’s 4,703 square foot lot became the equivalent of a conforming 5,000 square foot lot. In 2013, the City’s Building Inspector issued a building permit based on the 1973 variance that authorized Loring to construct a single-family house on her lot. Mary Campbell and others (collectively, Campbell), who owned nearby lots, appealed the issuance of the permit. The South Portland Board of Appeals affirmed the Building Inspector’s action, and the superior court affirmed the Board’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the 1973 variance was still in force when the building permit was issued, and the Building Inspector was authorized to act on Loring’s permit application; and (2) Campbell did not preserve her argument for municipal or judicial review that the building permit was not lawful because the proposed development would exceed the density restrictions for that zoning district. View "Campbell v. City of S. Portland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of manslaughter and aggravated leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a change of venue due to pre-trial publicity; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on testimony of her Father about statements that Defendant made in the hospital following the accident; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony regarding the presence of THC metabolites in a sample of Defendant’s blood; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Lowe" on Justia Law