Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Libby O’Brien Kingsley & Champion, LLC (LOKC) filed a complaint for breach of contract against Sharon Blanchard and simultaneously filed a motion for approval of attachment and trustee process against Blanchard’s property. Blanchard objected to LOKC’s motion but did include a supporting affidavit or other supporting documentation. The district court determined that Blanchard had waived her objection to the motion and considered the merits of the attachment motion without a hearing. The court then ordered attachment and trustee process against Blanchard’s real and personal property. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings in support of attachment and trustee process were supported by competent evidence in the motion record. View "Kingsley v. Blanchard" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not improperly terminate Father’s parental rights solely because he had been diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder and thus did not violate Father’s equal protection rights; (2) the district court provided Father with the due process required in the context of a termination of parental rights by providing him with a reasonable period of time for reunification and not improperly placing a burden of proof upon Father; and (3) there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re I.S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of gross sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to preserve a recording of a police interview of the victim and by the State’s twenty-two-year delay between the alleged assaults and the indictment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) Defendant did not prove the elements necessary to establish a violation of his constitutional rights due to the State’s loss of evidence where the missing recording was not apparently exculpatory at the time it was lost and because the State did not act in bad faith in causing its disappearance; and (2) the trial court did not err in finding that Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving prejudice from the pre-indictment delay. View "State v. Cote" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of gross sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to preserve a recording of a police interview of the victim and by the State’s twenty-two-year delay between the alleged assaults and the indictment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) Defendant did not prove the elements necessary to establish a violation of his constitutional rights due to the State’s loss of evidence where the missing recording was not apparently exculpatory at the time it was lost and because the State did not act in bad faith in causing its disappearance; and (2) the trial court did not err in finding that Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving prejudice from the pre-indictment delay. View "State v. Cote" on Justia Law

A district elementary school principal interpreted an educational policy to mean that elementary school teachers were expected to be present in their classrooms ten minutes before the start of the instructional day. The Coastal Education Association, an affiliate of a union representing teachers, filed a grievance with Regional School District Unit No. 5 (RSU No. 5) challenging the principal’s interpretation as a violation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Association and the Board of Directors of RSU No. 5. An arbitrator concluded that the principal’s directive violated the CBA and directed RSU No. 5 to rescind the educational policy. RSU No. 5 filed an application to vacate the arbitration award. The superior court granted the application, concluding that the dispute was not substantively arbitrable pursuant to the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law, which prevents school boards from bargaining on matters of educational policy or submitting educational policy disputes to interest arbitration. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that the educational policy at issue in this case was, as a matter of law, not substantively arbitrable. View "Reg’l Sch. Unit No. 5 v. Coastal Educ. Ass’n" on Justia Law

A district elementary school principal interpreted an educational policy to mean that elementary school teachers were expected to be present in their classrooms ten minutes before the start of the instructional day. The Coastal Education Association, an affiliate of a union representing teachers, filed a grievance with Regional School District Unit No. 5 (RSU No. 5) challenging the principal’s interpretation as a violation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Association and the Board of Directors of RSU No. 5. An arbitrator concluded that the principal’s directive violated the CBA and directed RSU No. 5 to rescind the educational policy. RSU No. 5 filed an application to vacate the arbitration award. The superior court granted the application, concluding that the dispute was not substantively arbitrable pursuant to the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law, which prevents school boards from bargaining on matters of educational policy or submitting educational policy disputes to interest arbitration. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that the educational policy at issue in this case was, as a matter of law, not substantively arbitrable. View "Reg’l Sch. Unit No. 5 v. Coastal Educ. Ass’n" on Justia Law

Christine Violette filed a complaint for divorce from Randy Violette. The district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment that mandated specific disciplinary measures and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err in calculating Randy’s income and by relying on that finding in its child support and spousal support awards; (2) did not abuse its discretion in its spousal support award; (3) did not clearly err in finding that two assets - a piece of real estate and a business - were wholly nonmarital; but (4) abused its discretion when it ordered the parties to discipline their children in a specific and inflexible fashion upon the occurrence of particular events with no discretion left to the parents. View "Violette v. Violette" on Justia Law

Christine Violette filed a complaint for divorce from Randy Violette. The district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment that mandated specific disciplinary measures and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err in calculating Randy’s income and by relying on that finding in its child support and spousal support awards; (2) did not abuse its discretion in its spousal support award; (3) did not clearly err in finding that two assets - a piece of real estate and a business - were wholly nonmarital; but (4) abused its discretion when it ordered the parties to discipline their children in a specific and inflexible fashion upon the occurrence of particular events with no discretion left to the parents. View "Violette v. Violette" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of tampering with a juror and violating a condition of release. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years in prison. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) defining the term “juror” in the jury instructions; and (3) allowing lay witnesses to testify about whether they thought Defendant was trying to influence them by holding up sign in view of twenty-five to thirty potential jurors before crumpling up the piece of paper and discarding it. View "State v. Solomon" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition seeking a general public guardianship over Colleen McIntosh, alleging that McIntosh’s diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia rendered her incapacitated. After a hearing, the county probate court appointed the Department as general public guardian for McIntosh based on its findings that McIntosh was incapacitated and in need of a full guardianship until her condition became adequately controlled and that there was no suitable private person available to fulfill that need. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was ample evidence supporting a finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, of each of the elements necessary for issuance of an order appointing the Department as McIntosh’s public guardian. View "In re Guardianship of McIntosh" on Justia Law