Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court denying the Town of Wells's motion for summary judgment in the underlying personal injury suit, holding that the plain language of the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 8101-8118, does not limit the waiver of immunity of governmental entities "for an employee's negligent operation of [a] motor vehicle resulting in a collision."Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the Town's police officers initiated a dangerous high-speed chase that they negligently failed to terminate, directly and proximately causing their injuries. In denying the Town's motion for summary judgment, the superior court concluded that Me. Rev. Stat. 14 8104-B(3), which provides governmental entities immunity for discretionary functions, does not require that a government vehicle be directly involved in a collision for the exception to governmental immunity to apply. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court correctly determined that the Town was not entitled to the entry of summary judgment. View "Convery v. Town of Wells" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court extending a weapons restriction placed on J because J presented a likelihood of foreseeable harm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.While J was in protective custody for threatening behavior a doctor concluded that J was a mentally ill person within the meaning of Me. Rev. Stat. 34-B, 3801(5) and that he posed a likelihood of foreseeable harm within the meaning of Me. Rev. Stat. 34-B, 3862-A. The court subsequently prohibited J from possessing dangerous weapons pending a judicial hearing. After a hearing, the court entered a written order extending the restriction for one year. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) section 3862-A neither violates Me. Const. art. I, 16, nor is it unconstitutionally vague; (2) the extension of the weapons restriction was supported by competent evidence; and (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments. View "In re Weapons Restriction of J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court determining that a settlement agreement signed by the parties constituted a binding contract and granting Plaintiff's motion to enforce the agreement, holding that issues of fact regarding the formation of the settlement agreement existed.Plaintiff bought this complaint against Defendant for unjust enrichment and partition of real estate. Plaintiff filed with the court a settlement agreement, signed by both parties, stating that the parties were previously in a personal and business relationship and seeking to resolve all issues arising from that relationship. Plaintiff then filed a motion to enforce that agreement and a declaration that the agreement was valid. The court approved the settlement agreement and entered judgment for Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if a party raises a factual issue that goes to the validity of a settlement agreement’s formation, an evidentiary hearing will generally be necessary on a motion to enforce the settlement, even if the written agreement otherwise appears to be a fully integrated contract; and (2) because no such hearing was held in this case the judgment must be vacated. View "Doe v. Lozano" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order entered by the district court dismissing Grandmother's petition for grandparent visitation for lack of standing, holding that there was no error.Grandmother petitioned against Mother and Father for visitation rights with the three children at issue in this case under the Grandparents and Great-grandparents Visitation Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1801-1806. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, concluding that Grandmother did not prove that she had a sufficient existing relationship with the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court applied the correct standard of proof and that the record did not compel the court to make factual findings in Grandmother's favor. View "Fiske v. Fiske" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for operating under the influence, entered after a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.After a trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of operating under the influence and of having a blood-alcohol level of .15 grams or more per 210 liters of breath at the time of the offense. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror based on implied bias; and (2) did not violate Defendant's constitutional rights by factoring into her sentence the court's view that her testimony was untruthful without making perjury findings. View "State v. Hemminger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the summary judgment entered by the superior court in favor of the City of Lewiston on the City's land use complaint alleging two violations of City ordinances, holding that the court did not have the discretion to allow William Verrinder to pay less than the minimum statutory penalty for each violation.On appeal, Verrinder argued that the superior court erred in concluding that his challenge to the City's notice of violation was barred by the doctrine of administrative res judicata and that the financial penalties imposed for the violations were unconstitutionally excessive. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part, holding (1) the superior court correctly determine that the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; but (2) the court erred in making the civil penalties it imposed for the two separate violations concurrent with each other rather than cumulative. View "City of Lewiston v. Verrinder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal from a decision of the superior court denying the City of Bangor's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury suit brought by the estate of Albert Bean (the Estate), holding that an issue of fact remained as to the City's insurance coverage.Following Bean's death, his widow and the Estate filed a complaint against the City alleging negligence, wrongful death, and loss of consortium. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 Me. Rev. Stat. 8101-8118, because it did not have insurance to cover the incident. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the City failed to meet its burden of establishing that there was no insurance coverage. View "Estate of Bean v. City of Bangor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court affirming the judgment of the district court that denied Landlord's forcible entry and detainer (FED) action to oust Tenant from possession of Landlord's property, holding that Tenant's breach of the terms of its lease entitled Landlord to issuance of a writ of possession.The district court concluded that Landlord was not entitled to possession of the subject property because Tenant's failure to pay its rent was at least in part excused by the force majeure clause in the parties' lease. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that Tenant's breach of the terms of its lease entitled Landlord to issuance of a writ of possession. View "55 Oak Street LLC v. RDR Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for certain domestic violence incidents, including possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury convicted him of six offenses Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for sanctions for the State’s alleged discovery violations; (2) the trial court did not commit obvious error by admitting testimony of a police officer, including certain statements under Me. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an unauthenticated letter that Defendant claimed was written on behalf of the victim; (4) the court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to dismiss because of the makeup of the jury venire; and (5) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have rationally found that every element of each count Defendant was convicted of was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal from an order entered in the business and consumer document granting a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint seeking to enforce a prior judgment awarding them damages for their claims against Defendants, holding that the appeal was interlocutory.Plaintiffs recorded writs of execution against Defendants but did not receive payment for the final judgment. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint to commence the enforcement action. Some of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss several counts, which the court granted. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal was interlocutory and that no exception to the final judgment rule applied. View "Maples v. Compass Harbor Village Condominium Ass'n" on Justia Law