20 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Walter R.green2 sentences2020We defer to that finding, see Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 2008 ME 65, ¶ 6 , 945 A.2d 1225 , and we will reach the merits of M.’s appeal pursuant to the collateral consequences exception, see In re Walter R., 2004 ME 77, ¶¶ 9-11 , 850 A.2d 346 . 7 B. 2020We defer to that finding, see Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 2008 ME 65, ¶ 6 , 945 A.2d 1225 , and we will reach the merits of M.’s appeal pursuant to the collateral consequences exception, see In re Walter R., 2004 ME 77, ¶¶ 9-11 , 850 A.2d 346 . 7 B. | 2 | 7 |
In Re Christopher H.green2 sentences2016One such exception applies where “sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief.” In re Christopher H., 2011 ME 13, ¶ 11 , 12 A.3d 64 (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted). [¶8] We agree with the parties’ contention that the collateral consequences exception applies here. 2016One such exception applies where “sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief.” In re Christopher H., 2011 ME 13, ¶ 11 , 12 A.3d 64 (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted). [¶8] We agree with the parties’ contention that the collateral consequences exception applies here. | 2 | 4 |
Sordyl v. Sordylgreen2 sentences2015The court will address these exceptions individually. 1) Collateral Consequences Exception Before considering the merits under the collateral consequences exception, plaintiffs must show "that a decision on the merits ... will have more than conjectural and insubstantial consequences in the future." Sordyl v. Sordyl, 1997 ME 87 , ,; 6, 692 A.2d 1386 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2015The court will address these exceptions individually. 1) Collateral Consequences Exception Before considering the merits under the collateral consequences exception, plaintiffs must show "that a decision on the merits ... will have more than conjectural and insubstantial consequences in the future." Sordyl v. Sordyl, 1997 ME 87 , ,; 6, 692 A.2d 1386 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 4 |
In Re Ciara H.green2 sentences2016In In re Ciara H„ we addressed the merits of a parent’s appeal from a jeopardy order although the child had turned eighteen while the appeal was pending. 2011 ME 109, ¶¶2, 5 , 30 A.3d 835 (per curiam). 2016In In re Ciara H„ we addressed the merits of a parent’s appeal from a jeopardy order although the child had turned eighteen while the appeal was pending. 2011 ME 109, ¶¶2, 5 , 30 A.3d 835 (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Lewis v. State, 2000 ME 44 , 4 4, 747 A.2d 1191, 1192 (finding the collateral consequences exception to mootness applied to petitioner’s habeas corpus challenge to his conviction, even after he had served out his sentence and been released). 2005See, e.g., Lewis v. State, 2000 ME 44 , 4 4, 747 A.2d 1191, 1192 (finding the collateral consequences exception to mootness applied to petitioner’s habeas corpus challenge to his conviction, even after he had served out his sentence and been released). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fletchergreen1 sentence2000See State v. Fletcher, 288 A.2d 92, 95 (Me.1972) (“Although Defendant had fully completed his sentence he was entitled under his already pending petition for the writ of statutory post-conviction habeas corpus to seek an appeal for the purpose of removing the conviction from his record.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Bennett, 289 A.2d at 32 ; Irish, 551 A.2d at 862 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Steven L.
green
2 sentences2019In re Steven L., 2014 ME 1, ¶ 5 , 86 A.3d 5 (Steven L. 2019In re Steven L., 2014 ME 1, ¶ 5 , 86 A.3d 5 (Steven L. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020We defer to that finding, see Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 2008 ME 65, ¶ 6 , 945 A.2d 1225 , and we will reach the merits of M.’s appeal pursuant to the collateral consequences exception, see In re Walter R., 2004 ME 77, ¶¶ 9-11 , 850 A.2d 346 . 7 B. 2020We defer to that finding, see Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 2008 ME 65, ¶ 6 , 945 A.2d 1225 , and we will reach the merits of M.’s appeal pursuant to the collateral consequences exception, see In re Walter R., 2004 ME 77, ¶¶ 9-11 , 850 A.2d 346 . 7 B. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Kevin C.
green
1 sentence2014This court is not aware of the current status of the patient, but is satisfied that the legal issue is not moot as an exception to the collateral consequences doctrine, in this case, the public interest exception, In re Christopher H., 2011 ME 13 ; In re Walter R., 2004 ME 77 ; In re Kevin C., 2004 ME 76 . 11:10 a.m., a judge of the District Court authorized the Bangor Police Department to take the patient into custody and to take him to the V.A. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance
green
2 sentences2013We will consider an appeal that is otherwise moot if the appellant can show that (1) sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; (2) the appeal contains questions of great public concern that, in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and the public, we may address; or (3) the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature. 11 Anthem Health Plans of Me., Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 2011 ME 48, ¶ 8 , 18 A.3d 824 (quotation marks omitted). [¶20] Here, 2013We will consider an appeal that is otherwise moot if the appellant can show that (1) sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; (2) the appeal contains questions of great public concern that, in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and the public, we may address; or (3) the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature. 11 Anthem Health Plans of Me., Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 2011 ME 48, ¶ 8 , 18 A.3d 824 (quotation marks omitted). [¶20] Here, | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2004State v. Jordan, 1998 ME 174, ¶ 10 , 716 A.2d 1004, 1006 . 2004State v. Jordan, 1998 ME 174, ¶ 10 , 716 A.2d 1004, 1006 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Wellman v. State
green
1 sentence2000In Wellman v. State, 588 A.2d 1178 (Me.1991), we held that a court was not required to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of his plea and that a defendant’s subjective misunderstanding of his entitlement to credit for time served in jail awaiting trial did not make his guilty plea involuntary. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Irish
green
1 sentence1998See Bennett, 289 A.2d at 32 ; Irish, 551 A.2d at 862 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.