5 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sandin v. Connergreen2 sentences2019However, in Sandin, the United States Supreme Court held that the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language ofregulations regarding those - conditions, but whether the conditions "impose[] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." 515 U.S. at 484 . 2015The Supreme Court has decided that when making a determination concerning a prison action "the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves 'in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."' Wilkinson, 545 U.S. 209,223 (2005) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. 472,484 (1995)). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Frederick Silvestri, Eldergreen1 sentence2025But it is not without exceptions.7 Applicable here is the independent source exception which, in keeping with the Fourth Amendment’s touchstone principle of reasonableness, see Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 250 , “allows the admission of evidence which was gained through an independent source as well as the tainted source.” United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 740 (1st Cir. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkinson v. Austingreen1 sentence2015The Supreme Court has decided that when making a determination concerning a prison action "the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves 'in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."' Wilkinson, 545 U.S. 209,223 (2005) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. 472,484 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.green2 sentences1973See, Standard Dredging Corp. v. Murphy, supra, and Davis v. Dept. of Labor, supra. In Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 , 79 S.Ct. 468 , 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959), the court stated that “ . . . if one thing is clear it is that the source of law in saving-clause actions cannot be described in absolute terms. 1973See, Standard Dredging Corp. v. Murphy, supra, and Davis v. Dept. of Labor, supra. In Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 , 79 S.Ct. 468 , 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959), the court stated that “ . . . if one thing is clear it is that the source of law in saving-clause actions cannot be described in absolute terms. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Jimeno
green
1 sentence2025But it is not without exceptions.7 Applicable here is the independent source exception which, in keeping with the Fourth Amendment’s touchstone principle of reasonableness, see Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 250 , “allows the admission of evidence which was gained through an independent source as well as the tainted source.” United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 740 (1st Cir. 1986). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Tondreau v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
green
1 sentence2020Any attempt to reverse-engineer the parties’ intent—which is, after all, the touchstone of our inquiry, see Tondreau, 638 A.2d at 730—solely from the four corners of this contract would be in vain. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2015The Supreme Court has applied a framework for analyzing what procedures are required when liberty interests are involved: The framework, established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 47 L. 2015The Supreme Court has applied a framework for analyzing what procedures are required when liberty interests are involved: The framework, established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 47 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.