Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
27 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cates v. Farringtongreen2 sentences2018P. 59(e) 1 need not be granted "unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has been committed or that substantial justice has not been done." Cates v. Farrington, 423 A.2d 539, 541 (Me. 1980). "[W]hen the trial is before a judge without a jury, such motions must be based on a manifest error of law or mistake of fact. 2017P. 59(e) need not be granted unless "it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has been committed or that substantial justice has not been done." Cates v. Farrington, 423 A.2d 539, 54-1 (Me. 1980) ("when the trial is before a judge without a jury, such motions must be based on a manifest error of law or mistake of fact."). | 3 | 4 |
State v. McKeoughgreen2 sentences2011A less demanding test was employed in State v. Greenlaw, which concluded that “in as much as [the erroneous instruction] may have misled the jury ... we deem this manifest error in law an efficient cause for setting aside the verdicts below.” 159 Me. 141, 150 , 189 A.2d 370 (1963), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gordon, 321 A.2d 352, 359 (Me.1974). [¶ 21] Beginning with State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 761 (Me.1973), we have generally framed the obvious error test in terms of a reasonable possibility that, but for the trial court’s error, the jury would have reached a different verdict 2011A less demanding test was employed in State v. Greenlaw, which concluded that "in as much as [the erroneous instruction] may have misled the jury . . . we deem this manifest error in law an efficient cause for setting aside the verdicts below." 159 Me. 141, 150 , 189 A.2d 370 (1963), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gordon, 321 A.2d 352, 359 (Me. 1974). [¶ 21] Beginning with State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 761 (Me.1973), we have generally framed the obvious error test in terms of a reasonable possibility that, but for the trial court's error, the jury would have reached a different verd | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bahregreen2 sentences1986Manifest error will be found only if “there exists a ‘reasonable possibility’ that a complete and adequate instruction would have resulted in a different verdict.” State v. Bahre, 456 A.2d 860, 865 (Me.1983). 1984Manifest error will be found only if “there exists a 'reasonable possibility’ that a complete and adequate instruction would have resulted in a different verdict.” State v. Bahre, 456 A.2d 860, 865 (Me.1983). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences1976Our review of the matter is therefore limited by the manifest error rule which permits the defendant relief only upon the presence of “serious prejudice tending to produce manifest injustice.” M.R.Crim.P., Rule 52(b); State v. Collins, Me., 297 A.2d 620, 631 (1972). 1975M.R.Crim.P., Rule 52(b); State v. Collins, Me., 297 A.2d 620, 631 (1972). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gordongreen2 sentences2011A less demanding test was employed in State v. Greenlaw, which concluded that “in as much as [the erroneous instruction] may have misled the jury ... we deem this manifest error in law an efficient cause for setting aside the verdicts below.” 159 Me. 141, 150 , 189 A.2d 370 (1963), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gordon, 321 A.2d 352, 359 (Me.1974). [¶ 21] Beginning with State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 761 (Me.1973), we have generally framed the obvious error test in terms of a reasonable possibility that, but for the trial court’s error, the jury would have reached a different verdict 2011A less demanding test was employed in State v. Greenlaw, which concluded that "in as much as [the erroneous instruction] may have misled the jury . . . we deem this manifest error in law an efficient cause for setting aside the verdicts below." 159 Me. 141, 150 , 189 A.2d 370 (1963), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gordon, 321 A.2d 352, 359 (Me. 1974). [¶ 21] Beginning with State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 761 (Me.1973), we have generally framed the obvious error test in terms of a reasonable possibility that, but for the trial court's error, the jury would have reached a different verd | 1 | 1 |
State v. Varneygreen1 sentence1995Bachelder, 403 A.2d at 760 ; State v. Varney, 641 A.2d 185, 187 (Me.1994); M.R.Crim.P. 52(b). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Truegreen1 sentence1989See State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 468-69 (Me.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frenchgreen1 sentence1982As in State v. French, Me., 357 A.2d 888, 889 (1976), a case of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, we indicate no opinion as to what our decision would be, if objection had properly been made on a motion to suppress timely pursued prior to trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence1981Although the trial justice exceeded the language from the American Bar Association charge adopted by this Court in State v. White, Me., 285 A.2d 832, 838 (1972), no objection was raised to the charge at trial, and we fail to find that it rises to the level of manifest error. *618 Having been instructed that they were “under no time constraints” and that they might have to deliberate “through the supper hour, if that becomes necessary,” the jury retired at 3:00 P.M. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Desjardinsgreen1 sentence1981State v. Desjardins, Me., 401 A.2d 165, 169 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Doucettegreen1 sentence1979State v. Doucette, Me., 398 A.2d 36, 39 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Chenard v. Marcel Motorsgreen1 sentence1979See Chenard v. Marcel Motors, Me., 387 A.2d 596, 603 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Doughtygreen1 sentence1979M.R.Crim.P. 30(b), 52(b); State v. Doughty, Me., 399 A.2d 1319, 1326 (1979); State v. Dutremble, Me., 392 A.2d 42, 45-46 (1978); State v. Gagnon, Me., 379 A.2d 395, 397 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gagnongreen1 sentence1979M.R.Crim.P. 30(b), 52(b); State v. Doughty, Me., 399 A.2d 1319, 1326 (1979); State v. Dutremble, Me., 392 A.2d 42, 45-46 (1978); State v. Gagnon, Me., 379 A.2d 395, 397 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deveaugreen2 sentences1979Manifest error was committed if there exists “ ‘a reasonable possibility that a complete instruction . . . would have resulted in a different verdict.’ ” State v. Deveau, Me., 354 A.2d 389, 392 (1976); State v. McKeough, Me., 300 A.2d 755, 761 (1973). 1979Manifest error was committed if there exists “ ‘a reasonable possibility that a complete instruction . . . would have resulted in a different verdict.’ ” State v. Deveau, Me., 354 A.2d 389, 392 (1976); State v. McKeough, Me., 300 A.2d 755, 761 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boyergreen1 sentence1979State v. Boyer, Me., 392 A.2d 41, 42 (1978). *244 From our review of the record we conclude that there was independent evidence upon which the fact finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew his check would be dishonored. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dutremblegreen1 sentence1979M.R.Crim.P. 30(b), 52(b); State v. Doughty, Me., 399 A.2d 1319, 1326 (1979); State v. Dutremble, Me., 392 A.2d 42, 45-46 (1978); State v. Gagnon, Me., 379 A.2d 395, 397 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thibodeaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Greenlaw
green
2 sentences2011A less demanding test was employed in State v. Greenlaw, which concluded that "in as much as [the erroneous instruction] may have misled the jury . . . we deem this manifest error in law an efficient cause for setting aside the verdicts below." 159 Me. 141, 150 , 189 A.2d 370 (1963), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gordon, 321 A.2d 352, 359 (Me. 1974). [¶ 21] Beginning with State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 761 (Me.1973), we have generally framed the obvious error test in terms of a reasonable possibility that, but for the trial court's error, the jury would have reached a different verd 2011A less demanding test was employed in State v. Greenlaw, which concluded that "in as much as [the erroneous instruction] may have misled the jury . . . we deem this manifest error in law an efficient cause for setting aside the verdicts below." 159 Me. 141, 150 , 189 A.2d 370 (1963), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gordon, 321 A.2d 352, 359 (Me. 1974). [¶ 21] Beginning with State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 761 (Me.1973), we have generally framed the obvious error test in terms of a reasonable possibility that, but for the trial court's error, the jury would have reached a different verd | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Bachelder
green
1 sentence1995Bachelder, 403 A.2d at 760 ; State v. Varney, 641 A.2d 185, 187 (Me.1994); M.R.Crim.P. 52(b). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Michaud
green
1 sentence1986Michaud, 473 A.2d at 404 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence1984Id. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Crooker v. Crooker
green
1 sentence1984We cannot read the statement in Cates v. Farrington, 432 A.2d at 541 , that “such motions must be based on a manifest error of law or mistake of fact" to foreclose the trial court from amending its judgment to reflect that which it may determine upon further consideration to be ■ a more correct conclusion of law or finding of fact. 12 .Prior to enactment of Federal Rule 59(e), a court was thought to have the power to alter or amend a judgment until its term ended. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Mahaney
green
1 sentence1982Id. at 619 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Chesnel
green
1 sentence1979State v. Chesnel, Me., 358 A.2d 381 (1976) (chamber conference omitted); State v. Taylor, Me., 343 A.2d 11 (1975) (offensive argument to jury not appearing of record); State v. Sheehan, Me., 337 A.2d 253 (1975) (basis of objection to evidence being different on appeal from that at trial); State v. Pritchett, Me., 302 A.2d 101 (1973) (voir dire examination omitted from the record); State v. Christian, Me., 235 A.2d 294 (1967) (evidence supporting quashing of array not transcribed); State v. Val- *170 lee, 137 Me. 311 , 19 A.2d 429 (1941) (what testimony was read to the jury undisclosed of recor | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Pritchett
green
1 sentence1979State v. Chesnel, Me., 358 A.2d 381 (1976) (chamber conference omitted); State v. Taylor, Me., 343 A.2d 11 (1975) (offensive argument to jury not appearing of record); State v. Sheehan, Me., 337 A.2d 253 (1975) (basis of objection to evidence being different on appeal from that at trial); State v. Pritchett, Me., 302 A.2d 101 (1973) (voir dire examination omitted from the record); State v. Christian, Me., 235 A.2d 294 (1967) (evidence supporting quashing of array not transcribed); State v. Val- *170 lee, 137 Me. 311 , 19 A.2d 429 (1941) (what testimony was read to the jury undisclosed of recor | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Christian
green
1 sentence1979State v. Chesnel, Me., 358 A.2d 381 (1976) (chamber conference omitted); State v. Taylor, Me., 343 A.2d 11 (1975) (offensive argument to jury not appearing of record); State v. Sheehan, Me., 337 A.2d 253 (1975) (basis of objection to evidence being different on appeal from that at trial); State v. Pritchett, Me., 302 A.2d 101 (1973) (voir dire examination omitted from the record); State v. Christian, Me., 235 A.2d 294 (1967) (evidence supporting quashing of array not transcribed); State v. Val- *170 lee, 137 Me. 311 , 19 A.2d 429 (1941) (what testimony was read to the jury undisclosed of recor | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Sheehan
green
1 sentence1979State v. Chesnel, Me., 358 A.2d 381 (1976) (chamber conference omitted); State v. Taylor, Me., 343 A.2d 11 (1975) (offensive argument to jury not appearing of record); State v. Sheehan, Me., 337 A.2d 253 (1975) (basis of objection to evidence being different on appeal from that at trial); State v. Pritchett, Me., 302 A.2d 101 (1973) (voir dire examination omitted from the record); State v. Christian, Me., 235 A.2d 294 (1967) (evidence supporting quashing of array not transcribed); State v. Val- *170 lee, 137 Me. 311 , 19 A.2d 429 (1941) (what testimony was read to the jury undisclosed of recor | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence1979State v. Chesnel, Me., 358 A.2d 381 (1976) (chamber conference omitted); State v. Taylor, Me., 343 A.2d 11 (1975) (offensive argument to jury not appearing of record); State v. Sheehan, Me., 337 A.2d 253 (1975) (basis of objection to evidence being different on appeal from that at trial); State v. Pritchett, Me., 302 A.2d 101 (1973) (voir dire examination omitted from the record); State v. Christian, Me., 235 A.2d 294 (1967) (evidence supporting quashing of array not transcribed); State v. Val- *170 lee, 137 Me. 311 , 19 A.2d 429 (1941) (what testimony was read to the jury undisclosed of recor | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Vallee
green
2 sentences1979State v. Chesnel, Me., 358 A.2d 381 (1976) (chamber conference omitted); State v. Taylor, Me., 343 A.2d 11 (1975) (offensive argument to jury not appearing of record); State v. Sheehan, Me., 337 A.2d 253 (1975) (basis of objection to evidence being different on appeal from that at trial); State v. Pritchett, Me., 302 A.2d 101 (1973) (voir dire examination omitted from the record); State v. Christian, Me., 235 A.2d 294 (1967) (evidence supporting quashing of array not transcribed); State v. Val- *170 lee, 137 Me. 311 , 19 A.2d 429 (1941) (what testimony was read to the jury undisclosed of recor 1979State v. Chesnel, Me., 358 A.2d 381 (1976) (chamber conference omitted); State v. Taylor, Me., 343 A.2d 11 (1975) (offensive argument to jury not appearing of record); State v. Sheehan, Me., 337 A.2d 253 (1975) (basis of objection to evidence being different on appeal from that at trial); State v. Pritchett, Me., 302 A.2d 101 (1973) (voir dire examination omitted from the record); State v. Christian, Me., 235 A.2d 294 (1967) (evidence supporting quashing of array not transcribed); State v. Val- *170 lee, 137 Me. 311 , 19 A.2d 429 (1941) (what testimony was read to the jury undisclosed of recor | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Blackburn v. Alabama green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Townsend v. Sain
red
2 sentences1978As to the voluntariness issue, although the possibly coercive setting of the segregation cell combined with the failure to give Miranda warnings might have been factors having significant bearing had a “Jackson v. Den-no” type hearing been conducted, the evidence of record in this case provides no basis sufficient to show in a manifest error-serious injustice context of appellate review that the confession was in fact other than the “product of a rational intellect and a free will.” Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 , 83 S.Ct. 745, 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 1 1978As to the voluntariness issue, although the possibly coercive setting of the segregation cell combined with the failure to give Miranda warnings might have been factors having significant bearing had a “Jackson v. Den-no” type hearing been conducted, the evidence of record in this case provides no basis sufficient to show in a manifest error-serious injustice context of appellate review that the confession was in fact other than the “product of a rational intellect and a free will.” Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 , 83 S.Ct. 745, 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 1 | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| State v. Boisvert green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Pierce v. Rodliff green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| State v. Meservie neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| State v. Wright green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| State v. Peterson green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.