Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in violation of condition of release entered in the trial court following a jury trial, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court committed no error that affected Defendant's substantial rights in informing the jury of a joint stipulation of facts when the stipulation was signed by Defendant's counsel but not him personally; (2) the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury; and (3) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to supporting the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged. View "State v. Bilynsky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial by the district court of Mother's Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, holding that the district court did not err.The parties in this case were divorced by a judgment entered in 2012. In 2014, the court entered an order reducing Father's child support obligation. In 2019, after both of the parties' minor children had reached the age of majority, Mother filed a Rule 60(b) motion arguing that Father's earnings had increased after the 2014 child support modification order but that he had failed to provide her with his tax returns or notify her about increases in his earnings, as required by the divorce judgment. The court denied Mother's motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that it did not have the authority to modify Father's child support obligation retroactively, notwithstanding the unreported increases in his earnings. View "Marks v. Marks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court's summary judgment entered in favor of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company as to Progressive Northwest Insurance Company's complaint seeking indemnification for a portion of a final settlement paid involving a mutually-insured party, Vincent Micale, holding that there was no error.Micale rented two jet skis from Jet Ski Guys, Inc. (JSG). Two individuals listed on Micale's rental agreement collided while operating the jet skis, resulting in injuries to one individual. At the time of the accident, Progressive provided a boat and personal watercraft liability insurance policy to Micale, and Metropolitan provided homeowner insurance to Micale. JSG filed a complaint alleging that Micale and others were negligent in the operation of the jet skis. The injured individual filed a cross-claim against Micale. In a settlement, Progressive agreed to pay $300,000 to the injured individual on Micale's behalf. Progressive then sued Metropolitan, arguing that Metropolitan had a duty to indemnify Micale for half the amount that Progressive had paid to the injured individual. The court entered judgment in Metropolitan's favor. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the plain meaning of Metropolitan's policy did not provide coverage for injuries arising out of the use of the watercraft involved in the accident. View "Progressive Northwest Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's complaint seeking judicial review of a decision of the Town of Kennebunkport's code enforcement officer (CEO) and a declaratory judgment, holding that the court should have dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.At issue was a decision of the CEO to life the CEO's previous suspension of building and land use permits issued to Plaintiff's neighbors, Lori Bell and John Scannell, and a declaratory judgment that structures on Bell and Scannell's property violated certain municipal ordinances. The superior court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, Defendant argued that the court should have instead dismissed his complaint without prejudice. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded for a dismissal without prejudice, holding that Me. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) did not authorize dismissal with prejudice. View "Slager v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court allocating parental rights and responsibilities concerning the parties' minor child, holding that the district court abused its discretion in requiring that Father bear the full burden of transportation with visits with the child until July 1, 2022.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) there was no competent evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that it was unreasonable for Father to drive or otherwise share in the child's transportation until July 1, 2022; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to deviate from child support guidelines even given Father's transportation costs; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating to Father child contact on the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays each year. View "Emerson v. Laffan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the summary judgment entered by the superior court in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's complaint alleging that he was injured as a result of Defendant's negligent operation of a motor vehicle, holding that summary judgment was improper.Plaintiff filed this complaint for negligence against Defendant, alleging that Defendant was the operator of the vehicle that struck his vehicle from behind, causing him injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that Plaintiff could not establish proximate causation. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Defendant's negligence caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries. View "Toto v. Knowles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Public Utilities Commission dismissing Appellants' complaint alleging that Central Maine Power Company (CMP) committed unreasonable practices by delivering notices threatening disconnection during the November 2020 to April 2021 winter season during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that there was no error.Appellants filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that they were threatened with disconnection notices because they were behind in payments to CMP. Appellants alleged that by sending notices threatening disconnection, when COVID-19 case numbers were rising, amounted to an "unreasonable" practice by CMP. The Commission dismissed the complaint as being "without merit." The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err or abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint based on its previous determination that Appellants' allegations were without merit. View "Gamage v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court entering summary judgment in favor of Karen and Ronald White on Cecelia Boles's complaint alleging premises liability, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Boles was a guest of tenants who rented a two-story house owned by the Whites. Boles was injured when she descended the staircase between the first and second floor and fell at the landing at the bottom of the staircase. Boles brought suit against the Whites on the theory of premises liability for injuries she sustained in the fall. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Whites, concluding that the tenants were in exclusive control of the premises, that the Whites did not expressly agree to maintain the premises in good repair, and that there was no alternative basis for finding the Whites liable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Boles's claims on appeal were unavailing. View "Boles v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of intentional or knowing murder, elevated aggravated assault, and robbery, holding that none of Defendant's arguments on appeal had merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of duress and that the court abused its discretion by precluding his expert witness from expressing an opinion that it was “more likely than not” that the surviving victim was “confabulating” her memory when recalling what happened during the shootings that resulted in the criminal charges. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on the defense of duress; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert's statement. View "State v. Murray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed as interlocutory Father's appeal from a judicial review order requiring him to return his child to Maine, holding that Father's appeal of the interlocutory order was not permitted.After a hearing to address Father's request for a parental rights and responsibilities order and to perform a judicial review regarding the child's relocation to Florida with Father, the court found that there was no jeopardy as to Father and ordered that the child remain in his custody subject to certain conditions. Father appealed this order. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeal was interlocutory and not authorized under statute. View "In re Child of Nicholas G." on Justia Law