Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal arising from a set of commercial construction projects the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment in favor of Fortney & Weygant, Inc. (F&W) on the counterclaims filed by Lewiston DMEP IX, LLC, et al. (collectively, GBT) for liquidated damages, affirmed in part as to the prompt payment remedies allowed to F&W, and vacated the portion of the judgment awarding attorney fees and costs to F&W pursuant to the terms of the parties' contract.The trial court determined that, in addition to damages for breach of contract, F&W was entitled to remedies, including attorney fees pursuant to Maine's prompt payment statutes, that F&W was entitled to attorney fees pursuant to the terms of the parties' contract, and that GBT was estopped from seeking to enforce a contractual right to liquidated damages against F&W. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court (1) did not erroneously conclude that GBT was equitably estopped from recovering liquidated damages against F&W; (2) properly awarded F&W prompt payment remedies except to the extent that the remedy failed to account for the value of GBT's liquidated damages claims that GBT withheld in good faith; and (3) erred when it concluded that the contract contemplated an award of attorney fees outside the context of arbitration. View "Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. Lewiston DMEP IX, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting an order terminating each parent's parental rights and that the Department of Health and Human Services provided appropriate and necessary reunification services.The district court terminated Mother's parental rights to her three children and terminated Father's parental rights to the child the parents had in common. Both parents appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment terminating Parents' parental rights; and (2) the Department made good faith efforts to cooperate with Father in pursuit of the rehabilitation and reunification plan for him. View "In re Children of Danielle M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit and that termination was in the child's best interest.Specifically, the Court found by clear and convincing evidence that even though Mother may be willing she was unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. Further, the court found that Mother was unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that its was in the best interest of the child that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no clear error or abuse of discretion in the court's findings or analysis. View "In re Child of Charlene F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court affirming the second decision of the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review granting Taxpayers 14.74 percent abatements to their land values, holding that the Board's original abatements reviewed by the superior court after this Court's remand satisfied constitutional requirements.In previous opinions, the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the Board had erred in denying Taxpayers' abatement requests to their land values. On remand, the Board granted Taxpayers eight percent abatements to their land values. The superior court vacated the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's abatement formulate was unreasonable. On remand, the Board determined that Taxpayers were entitled to 14.74 percent abatements. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court's judgment affirming the Board's second decision granting 14.74 percent abatements and remanded with directions to affirm the Board's first decision, holding that the Board's original decision was not outside the reasonable range of discretion allowed the Board under this Court's precedents. View "Bolton v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of robbery and unlawful possession of scheduled drugs, holding that the trial court did not err by overruling Defendant's objection to an aspect of the State’s closing argument, and Defendant was not denied a fair trial because the court failed to address sua sponte the State’s alleged misstatement of evidence in its rebuttal argument.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument by overruling Defendant's objection to an argument that Defendant argued improperly suggested that Defendant had the burden of proof; and (2) any mischaracterization of the evidence by the State was not of such magnitude to have required the court to intervene sua sponte. View "State v. Sousa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of assault a child younger than six years old, holding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court's jury instructions did not constitute obvious error, and there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict.Specifically, the Court held (1) the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct during the trial; (2) there was no obvious error in the trial court's instructions to the jury on the elements of the aggravated assault charges; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for one of the aggravated assault charges. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the Business and Consumer Docket (BCD) in favor of the Town of Bar Harbor on Landowners' complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Town's Zoning Ordinance Amendment was invalid, holding that Landowners failed to demonstrate a particularized injury and commenced this action prematurely.The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued an order approving the Amendment, which changed the Town's Land Use Ordinance by, among other things, creating a new Shoreland Maritime Activities District that would apply to the Town's Ferry Terminal Property. Landowners, individuals whose properties had views overlooking the waters adjacent to the Town's Ferry Terminal Property, sought a declaratory judgment that the Amendment was invalid. The BCD entered judgment for the Town. Landowners appealed, arguing that the Amendment was inconsistent with state law and that the court erred in deferring to the order of the DEP in approving the Amendment. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court's judgment on standing and ripeness grounds and remanded the case for dismissal without prejudice, holding that Landowners lacked standing to challenge the Amendment and that their claim was not ripe. View "Blanchard v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's judgment of conviction of manslaughter following a jury trial on an indictment for murder, holding that the trial court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held that the trial court (1) acted within its discretion in its conduct of voir dire, which addressed virtually all of Defendant's concerns; (2) did not clearly err in admitting a photograph of the victim with his son and acted within its discretion in overruling Defendant's Rule 403 objection; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by giving a curative instruction after the prosecutor misstated the evidence during closing arguments because the curative instruction adequately remedied any prejudice to Defendant. View "State v. Bethea" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.Mother left the hospital after giving birth to Child without taking Child with her. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother had not seen Child for more than a year. Despite having notice of a hearing for the termination of her parental rights, Mother did not appear. The district court terminated Mother's parental rights under Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(A), (b)(i)-(iv). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support all four grounds of unfitness found by the district court; and (2) the record supported the court's determination that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. View "In re Child of Nichole W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating under the influence, operating after suspension, and criminal speeding, holding that the court's instructions contained obvious error by informing the jury that it could consider evidence of a failure to submit to a test on the issue of operation.On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not receive a fair trial because the jury was instructed about how it could properly consider evidence of his failure to submit to a breath or blood alcohol test. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) because the jury instructions misstated the law and remained incorrect by any other component of the jury charge the instructions constituted plain error; and (2) the error rose to the level of obvious error because there was a reasonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial and Defendant's substantial rights. View "State v. Thurlow" on Justia Law