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.
23 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Linda C. Gigueregreen2 sentences2025See Est. of Giguere, 2024 ME 41, ¶ 15 , 315 A.3d 737 (“For an appellant who had the burden of proof at trial to prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, that party must demonstrate that a contrary finding was compelled by the evidence.” (quotation marks omitted)). 2025See Est. of Giguere, 2024 ME 41, ¶ 15 , 315 A.3d 737 (“For an appellant who had the burden of proof at trial to prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, that party must demonstrate that a contrary finding was compelled by the evidence.” (quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mardengreen2 sentences1999See State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304, 1311 (Me.1996). 1997State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304, 1311 (Me.1996). *1230 [¶ 8] Farrar argues that the forensic and physical evidence required the jury to reject the complainants’ version of the incident. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Connollygreen1 sentence2013The defendant retains the burden of proof, see Strickler, 527 U.S. at 296 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , and the denial of a motion for a new trial based upon alleged Brady violations is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Connolly, 504 F.3d 206, 211-12, 219 (1st Cir.2007). [¶ 33] The Supreme Court has cautioned that the materiality inquiry is not a simple preponderance standard or a sufficiency of the evidence test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ricegreen2 sentences2010See State v. Rice, 2007 ME 122, ¶ 22 , 930 A.2d 1064, 1068 . 2010See State v. Rice, 2007 ME 122, ¶ 22 , 930 A.2d 1064, 1068 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Charles G.green2 sentences2003The court stated on the record, at the close of the hearing, that it did not find “any reasonable excuse for the disruption, phone disconnection and all that.” [¶ 13] When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to facts that must be found by clear and convincing evidence, we examine the record to determine “whether the trial court could have reasonably been persuaded on the basis of the evidence in the record that the required factual findings were highly probable.” In re Charles G., 2001 ME 3, ¶ 5 , 763 A.2d 1163, 1166 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2003The court stated on the record, at the close of the hearing, that it did not find “any reasonable excuse for the disruption, phone disconnection and all that.” [¶ 13] When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to facts that must be found by clear and convincing evidence, we examine the record to determine “whether the trial court could have reasonably been persuaded on the basis of the evidence in the record that the required factual findings were highly probable.” In re Charles G., 2001 ME 3, ¶ 5 , 763 A.2d 1163, 1166 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes Bros., Inc. v. a & M CONTRACTORS, INC.green2 sentences2000See Hughes Bros., Inc. v. A & M Contractors, Inc., 1999 ME 175, ¶2 , 740 A.2d 996, 997 ; Schlear v. James Newspapers, Inc., 1998 ME 215, ¶ 3 , 717 A.2d 917, 918 . 2000See Hughes Bros., Inc. v. A & M Contractors, Inc., 1999 ME 175, ¶2 , 740 A.2d 996, 997 ; Schlear v. James Newspapers, Inc., 1998 ME 215, ¶ 3 , 717 A.2d 917, 918 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barrygreen1 sentence1994Sufficiency of the Evidence In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether a jury rationally could find every element of the criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. *457 E.g., State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Westleigh v. Conger
green
2 sentences2009An appellant “can prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a finding that her burden has not been met only if she demonstrates that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.” Westleigh v. Conger, 2000 ME 134, ¶ 12 , 755 A.2d 518, 520 . [¶ 11] For a court to find a party in contempt, the complaining party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor failed or refused to comply with a court order and presently has the ability to comply with that order. 2009An appellant “can prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a finding that her burden has not been met only if she demonstrates that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.” Westleigh v. Conger, 2000 ME 134, ¶ 12 , 755 A.2d 518, 520 . [¶ 11] For a court to find a party in contempt, the complaining party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor failed or refused to comply with a court order and presently has the ability to comply with that order. | 3 | 2001–2009 |
Efstathiou v. Efstathiou
green
2 sentences2025The party seeking a contempt order “can prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a finding that her burden has not been met only if she demonstrates that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.” Efstathiou, 2009 ME 107, ¶ 10 , 982 A.2d 339 (quotation marks omitted). [¶10] Based on the record before us, we conclude that the court clearly erred in its findings regarding the accounting for and the division of James’s employee stock holdings and the value of the 401(k) account. 2025The party seeking a contempt order “can prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a finding that her burden has not been met only if she demonstrates that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.” Efstathiou, 2009 ME 107, ¶ 10 , 982 A.2d 339 (quotation marks omitted). [¶10] Based on the record before us, we conclude that the court clearly erred in its findings regarding the accounting for and the division of James’s employee stock holdings and the value of the 401(k) account. | 2 | 2011–2025 |
State v. Dilley
green
2 sentences2020The clear error standard 7 “is similar to a sufficiency of the evidence standard in that it asks if the trial court’s ruling on evidentiary foundation is supported by or not inconsistent with the facts that appear in the record.” State v. Dilley, 2008 ME 5, ¶ 25 , 938 A.2d 804 (quotation marks omitted). [¶12] Pursuant to M.R. 2020The clear error standard 7 “is similar to a sufficiency of the evidence standard in that it asks if the trial court’s ruling on evidentiary foundation is supported by or not inconsistent with the facts that appear in the record.” State v. Dilley, 2008 ME 5, ¶ 25 , 938 A.2d 804 (quotation marks omitted). [¶12] Pursuant to M.R. | 2 | 2008–2020 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences2003State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 6 , 766 A.2d 1025, 1027 ; State v. Black, 2000 ME 211, ¶¶ 13-19 , 763 A.2d 109, 112-14 . 2003State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 6 , 766 A.2d 1025, 1027 ; State v. Black, 2000 ME 211, ¶¶ 13-19 , 763 A.2d 109, 112-14 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Handrahan v. Malenko
green
2 sentences2024Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C., 2012 ME 116, ¶ 16 , 55 A.3d 443 (“As with any other appeal, on issues on which 9 the plaintiff had the burden of proof, the clear error standard of review requires that, to overturn a finding that a plaintiff has failed to prove one or more elements of a claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.”); Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 13 , 12 A.3d 79 (“For an appellant who had the burden of proof at trial to prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, that party must demonstrate that a cont 2024Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C., 2012 ME 116, ¶ 16 , 55 A.3d 443 (“As with any other appeal, on issues on which 9 the plaintiff had the burden of proof, the clear error standard of review requires that, to overturn a finding that a plaintiff has failed to prove one or more elements of a claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.”); Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 13 , 12 A.3d 79 (“For an appellant who had the burden of proof at trial to prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, that party must demonstrate that a cont | 1 | 2024–2024 |
St. Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C.
green
2 sentences2024Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C., 2012 ME 116, ¶ 16 , 55 A.3d 443 (“As with any other appeal, on issues on which 9 the plaintiff had the burden of proof, the clear error standard of review requires that, to overturn a finding that a plaintiff has failed to prove one or more elements of a claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.”); Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 13 , 12 A.3d 79 (“For an appellant who had the burden of proof at trial to prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, that party must demonstrate that a cont 2024Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C., 2012 ME 116, ¶ 16 , 55 A.3d 443 (“As with any other appeal, on issues on which 9 the plaintiff had the burden of proof, the clear error standard of review requires that, to overturn a finding that a plaintiff has failed to prove one or more elements of a claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.”); Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15, ¶ 13 , 12 A.3d 79 (“For an appellant who had the burden of proof at trial to prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, that party must demonstrate that a cont | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Amy E. (Boddy) Dickens v. William John Boddy
green
2 sentences2024As applied here, under the clear error standard, the party who had the burden of proof in the proceeding below can prevail on “a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a finding that his or her burden has not been met only by demonstrating that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence in the record.” Dickens v. Boddy, 2015 ME 81 ¶ 12 , 119 A.3d 722 ; see also St. 2024As applied here, under the clear error standard, the party who had the burden of proof in the proceeding below can prevail on “a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a finding that his or her burden has not been met only by demonstrating that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence in the record.” Dickens v. Boddy, 2015 ME 81 ¶ 12 , 119 A.3d 722 ; see also St. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2013Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434-35 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 . 2013Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434-35 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Strickler v. Greene
green
2 sentences2013The defendant retains the burden of proof, see Strickler, 527 U.S. at 296 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , and the denial of a motion for a new trial based upon alleged Brady violations is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Connolly, 504 F.3d 206, 211-12, 219 (1st Cir.2007). [¶ 33] The Supreme Court has cautioned that the materiality inquiry is not a simple preponderance standard or a sufficiency of the evidence test. 2013The defendant retains the burden of proof, see Strickler, 527 U.S. at 296 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , and the denial of a motion for a new trial based upon alleged Brady violations is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Connolly, 504 F.3d 206, 211-12, 219 (1st Cir.2007). [¶ 33] The Supreme Court has cautioned that the materiality inquiry is not a simple preponderance standard or a sufficiency of the evidence test. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Filler
green
1 sentence2010DISCUSSION [¶ 8] We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal and a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether the trier of fact rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense[ ] charged.” Filler, 2010 ME 90, ¶ 24 , 8 A.3d at 372 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Pratt v. Spaulding
green
2 sentences2009Pratt v. Spaulding, 2003 ME 56, ¶ 10 , 822 A.2d 1183, 1186 . 2009Pratt v. Spaulding, 2003 ME 56, ¶ 10 , 822 A.2d 1183, 1186 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Kotredes
green
2 sentences2007State v. Kotredes, 2003 ME 142, ¶ 9 , 838 A.2d 331, 335 . 2007State v. Kotredes, 2003 ME 142, ¶ 9 , 838 A.2d *1069 331, 335. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Chesnel
green
2 sentences2003"The appellant has the burden and the responsibility to ensure that the record on appeal is sufficient to permit us to assess adequately each claim of error.” State v. Chesnel, 1999 ME 120, ¶ 28 , 734 A.2d 1131, 1140 . 2003"The appellant has the burden and the responsibility to ensure that the record on appeal is sufficient to permit us to assess adequately each claim of error.” State v. Chesnel, 1999 ME 120, ¶ 28 , 734 A.2d 1131, 1140 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Black
green
2 sentences2003State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 6 , 766 A.2d 1025, 1027 ; State v. Black, 2000 ME 211, ¶¶ 13-19 , 763 A.2d 109, 112-14 . 2003State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 6 , 766 A.2d 1025, 1027 ; State v. Black, 2000 ME 211, ¶¶ 13-19 , 763 A.2d 109, 112-14 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schlear v. James Newspapers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000See Hughes Bros., Inc. v. A & M Contractors, Inc., 1999 ME 175, ¶2 , 740 A.2d 996, 997 ; Schlear v. James Newspapers, Inc., 1998 ME 215, ¶ 3 , 717 A.2d 917, 918 . 2000See Hughes Bros., Inc. v. A & M Contractors, Inc., 1999 ME 175, ¶2 , 740 A.2d 996, 997 ; Schlear v. James Newspapers, Inc., 1998 ME 215, ¶ 3 , 717 A.2d 917, 918 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.