Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this class action, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court declining to grant declaratory and injunctive relief from alleged violations of constitutional rights arising from the York County Probate Court schedule ordered by former York Court Probate Judge Robert Nadeau. While Plaintiff’s appeal was pending, Judge Nadeau filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case became moot when he lost the election for the probate judgeship. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) this appeal was is moot; and (2) the superior court did not err in determining that Judge Nadeau’s altered court schedule did not result in delays in these routine cases that rose to the level of constitutional deprivations, and Judge Nadeau did not violate the class members’ substantive due process rights as litigants in the York County Probate Court. View "Legrand v. York County Judge of Probate" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of North East Insurance Company on the reach and apply action Richardie Kelley brought pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 24-A, 2904. The superior court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action were based on a claim that did not fall within the scope of the North East automobile insurance policy. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding Kelley failed to carry her burden of showing the damages she was awarded in the underlying action were based on a claim that fell within the scope of the North East policy. View "Kelley v. North East Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was twice convicted of cruelty to animals and ordered never to possess animals again. However, when Defendant was released from the prison sentence imposed after her second conviction, Defendant acquired a variety of animals. A jury rendered a verdict finding Defendant in contempt of court, and the trial court entered a judgment on the contempt verdict. Defendant was sentenced to 364 days in jail. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the contempt finding; and (2) Defendant’s challenges to the contempt finding were without merit. View "State v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their minor child. After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time calculated to meet the child’s needs. The court further found that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the findings of parental unfitness were supported but he evidence and that the court did not err in determining that termination of the parents’ parental rights will serve the child’s best interest. View "In re Ryder C." on Justia Law

Arthur Grief, a Bar Harbor resident, sent a letter to the Bar Harbor Town Council detailing allegations of misconduct by two of the Town’s councilors. Grief urged the Town Council to convene an investigatory hearing to determine whether the councilors’ conduct violated the Town Charter and consequently warranted forfeiture of their positions. The Council voted to enter an executive session to consult with the Town’s attorney regarding Grief’s letter. After the executive session, the council voted unanimously to pursue no further action, concluding that the allegations in the letter did not warrant further consideration by the Council. The superior court affirmed the actions of the Town and rejected Greif’s claims that the Council the provisions of Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Council neither violated the town charter nor the FOAA. View "Greif v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the postconviction court denying Defendant’s petition for postconviction review seeking relief from a judgment convicting Defendant of theft by misapplication of property and securities fraud. In his petition for postconviction review Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel during plea negotiations and at trial, resulting in prejudice. In its judgment, the court found that Defendant’s arguments did not warrant relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court was not compelled to find that Defendant established deficient representation or prejudice during either plea negotiations or trial. View "Philbrook v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed a complaint alleging that Mercy Hospital discriminated against her in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) by terminating her employment because of her alleged disability and refusing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. The superior court entered summary judgment for Mercy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff was not a “qualified individual with a disability” as defined by the MHRA. View "Carnicella v. Mercy Hospital" on Justia Law

In 2004, Michael Bailey began to receive partial incapacity benefits stemming from a workplace injury. In 2007, a hearing officer found that Bailey had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and that he had sustained an injury that resulted in a permanent impairment level of thirty-two percent. In 2013, the City of Lewiston filed a petition seeking review of the level of Bailey’s incapacity and a petition seeking to determine the extent of his permanent impairment. The hearing officer concluded that there was a change of circumstances warranting a new permanent impairment finding and reduced Bailey’s permanent impairment level to zero percent. The decree thus terminated Bailey’s entitlement to further compensation. The Workers’ Compensation Board Appellate Division vacated the hearing officer’s decree, ruling that the 2007 determination of permanent impairment as of the date of MMI was final, and therefore, the doctrine of res judicata barred relitigation of that issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division did not err in concluding that relitigation of Bailey’s permanent impairment level was barred by res judicata principles. View "Bailey v. City of Lewiston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child. Contrary to Mother’s contentions, the court held (1) Mother was not deprived of due process because the district court afforded her sufficient notice of the termination hearing before terminating her parental rights and did not place undue weight not he earlier termination of Mother’s rights to another child; and (2) the court’s findings were sufficient as a matter of law, and the court’s judgment was the “result of the application of independent judicial thought to the process of making fact-findings and conclusions.” View "In re Zoey H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s sentences totaling sixty years following Defendant’s guilty plea to four counts of gross sexual assault. This was Defendant’s second appeal arising out of the events that led to these charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the trial court was not required to find specific aggravating circumstances before imposing what Defendant claimed was a de facto life sentence; and (2) the trial court did not impose an illegal sentence because Defendant's aggregate sentence was neither disproportionate to the offenses charged, nor did the sentence offend prevailing notions of decency. View "State v. Hoover" on Justia Law