Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dozens of suits were filed against Irving Oil Limited (IOL) alleging environmental contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) occurring from 1979 to the present. At the time of this opinion, all of the MTBE suits against IOL had been settled. In 2009, IOL filed a complaint asking the superior court to declare that ACE INA Insurance (ACE) had a duty to defend and indemnify in the MTBE suits. The superior court granted IOL’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, concluding that it could not declare that IOL was entitled a judgment on the duty-to-defend count as a matter of law. IOL appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed IOL’s appeal and ACE’s cross-appeal, holding that although a decision that an insurer does not have a duty to defend its insured is ordinarily immediately appealable under the death knell exception to the final judgment rule, the exception did not apply in this case because there were no MTBE cases pending against IOL.View "Irving Oil Ltd. et al. v. ACE INA Ins." on Justia Law

After the district court allocated primary residence of two minor children to Father, the children began residing with Father’s mother (“Grandmother”). Mother later sought primary residence and sole parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the children. In response, Grandmother filed a petition for de facto parental rights. The district court denied Grandmother’s petition, concluding that Grandmother failed to present sufficient evidence of her status as a de facto parent to establish that she had standing in a parental rights and responsibilities proceeding. Because the Supreme Court clarified, in Pitts v. Moore, the concepts necessary for a determination of de facto parenthood after the district court denied Grandmother’s petition, the Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court’s opinion in Pitts.View "Eaton v. Paradis" on Justia Law

In 2007, Plaintiff, frustrated with then-proposed budget cuts to mental health services, sent the Governor a series of emails that were interpreted as threatening. Plaintiff was delivered to MaineGeneral Medical Center for a psychiatric evaluation, where she was eventually subjected to a search and held against her will for the night in a locked room. Plaintiff later filed an action against MaineGeneral and Scott Kemmerer, an emergency room physician, alleging that Defendants deprived her of liberty without due process and subjected her to an unreasonable search in violation of the Maine Civil Rights Act (MCRA). Defendants filed for entry of summary judgment as to the MCRA claims. The court (1) granted the motion as to MaineGeneral, determining that MaineGeneral could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees under the MCRA; and (2) denied the motion as to Kemmerer. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the denial of summary judgment as to Kemmerer on issues of immunity, holding that Kemmerer was not entitled to absolute immunity or common law qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s MCRA claims; and (2) did not reach Kemmerer’s remaining arguments in this interlocutory appeal. View "Clifford v. MaineGeneral Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Amanda Moore and Matthew Pitts were in an “on again, off again” relationship when Moore learned she was pregnant. The child was born in 2009. In 2011, Pitts filed a complaint seeking parental rights and responsibilities concerning the child. Moore asserted that Pitts was not the child’s biological father, and Pitts stipulated to that fact. The matter thus proceeded as one of asserted de facto parenthood. The district court determined that Pitts was the child’s de facto parent and that continued contact with Pitts was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that pursuant to the Court’s newly-announced two-part standard pursuant to which de facto parenthood petitions must be evaluated, the matter must be remanded.View "Pitts v. Moore" on Justia Law

In 2010, the assessor for the Town of Scarborough valued Plaintiff’s property for the tax year 2010-11 at the same assessed value as set in 2005. Plaintiff subsequently filed an application for a tax abatement, which the assessor denied. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an application for assessment review with Scarborough’s Board of Assessment Review, arguing that the Town’s assessor substantially overvalued his property. After a hearing, the Board denied Plaintiff’s appeal, concluding that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing that the property was substantially overvalued relative to its market value. The Supreme Court vacated the Board’s determination and remanded for a reevaluation of Plaintiff’s property, holding that, in this case, the evidence established that the property was substantially overvalued. View "Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law

The Public Utilities Commission found that, from 2008 to 2010, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) had applied approximately $2.6 million worth of customer deposits to debts owed on its own transmission-and-distribution services when that portion of the deposits should have been applied to debts owed for standard-offer service. Accordingly, the Commission ordered CMP to remedy its misallocation of deposits between its separate receivables accounts. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding (1) the Commission correctly interpreted the governing statutes and regulations; (2) under the circumstances of this case, the Commission’s retroactive application of its new interpretation did not offend concepts of due process or reasonable notice; and (3) the Commission’s decision did not constitute improper retroactive ratemaking.View "Cent. Me. Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition for termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights to M.S., alleging that Mother had failed to take responsibility for her mental health issues, her substance abuse, and her abusive relationship with Father, and that Father had failed to protect M.S. from the risk of harm posed by Mother. After a hearing, the district court terminated both parents’ parental rights to M.S. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in excluding the testimony of a DHHS caseworker regarding Father’s care for his daughter from a prior relationship, but the error was harmless; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the termination of the parents’ parental rights. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law

In 2011, the State charged Defendant of aggravated assault and attempted murder. The State alleged that while Defendant and his wife, Lisa, were hiking on Megunticook Mountain, Defendant struck Lisa in the head, dragged her to the edge of a cliff, and threw her over the edge. Shortly thereafter, Defendant was seriously injured after himself falling from a cliff. Defendant was treated at Eastern Maine Medical Center for several days. In 2012, the State obtained a search warrant to obtain Defendant’s personal medical records from the hospital. Defendant filed a motion to suppress his medical records or, in the alternative, to dismiss the charges against him, contending that the State failed to use the proper procedure in obtaining his records, the search warrant was overbroad and not supported by probable cause, and the use of the search warrant during his criminal proceeding violated his due process rights. The trial court declined to suppress Defendant’s medical records. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal as interlocutory, holding that the trial court’s decision not to suppress the evidence did not give rise to a right to an interlocutory appeal. View "State v. Black" on Justia Law

The Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection issued a compliance order requiring Mallinckrodt US LLC and United States Surgical Corporation (collectively, Mallinckrodt) to excavate material containing mercury and other contaminants from five landfills located on a site adjacent to the Penobscot River and to transfer the material to off-site landfills. After a hearing, the Board of Environmental Protection modified and affirmed the order by requiring that Mallinckrodt excavate only two of the landfills and that it secure and monitor the others. Mallinckrodt appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commissioner was statutorily authorized to issue the compliance order; (2) the Board did not err in conducting the proceedings in accordance with statutorily provided rules rather than promulgating its own; (3) the Board did not err by precluding Mallinckrodt from cross-examining two consultants who assisted the Board in evaluating technical evidence because the consultants did not offer testimony; and (4) the Board did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence relating to the Commissioner’s possible political bias.View "Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

In 2008, the district court entered a divorce judgment that awarded primary residence of Mother and Father’s child to Mother with specific rights of contact to Father. After the initial divorce judgment was entered, the parties filed multiple post-judgment motions on issues of custody and visitation. A hearing was held on Mother’s latest motion to modify, in which the district court determined that the parties’ child was competent to testify. The testimony was taken in chambers and off the record. Based on the testimony, along with Mother’s testimony, the district court concluded that it was not in the child’s best interest to continue to have unsupervised contact with Father. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding (1) a trial court may not, in a civil proceeding, and in the absence of an agreement of the parties, take testimony from a child witness in chambers and off the record; and (2) the court’s ultimate decision to modify Father’s rights of contact based on the testimony was error, and the error was not harmless.View "Hutchinson v. Cobb" on Justia Law