fair and unbiased hearing in Maine

2013A. Due Process [¶ 14] The abutters argue that the Planning Board violated the abutters’ due process rights when the Planning Coordinator sent an email only to the attorney for Berwick Iron seeking approval of the Board’s selection of an independent reviewer, hired to assess the competing opinions of experts on air emissions. 3 *155 [¶ 15] Both an applicant and members of the public who oppose a project are “entitled under the [D]ue [Process [CJlause of the United States and Maine [Constitutions to a fair and unbiased hearing.” Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898, 902 (Me.1993); see

2004A. Bias and conflict of interest ° Parties to an administrative or governmental proceeding are entitled "to a fair and unbiased hearing." Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898, 902 (Me. 1993).

2017Clean Fuels, *774 Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 745-48 (Me. 1973) (the due process right to respond to opposing evidence does not include cross-examination of opposing witnesses in an administrative hearing). [¶ 19] Persons who come before an administrative board are entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing.

2013Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 745-48 (Me.1973). [¶ 17] In the context of municipal planning boards, we have stated that due process entitles a party “to a fair and unbiased hearing.” Lane Constr.

2015See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2004 ME 32, ¶ 36 , 843 A.2d 8 . [¶ 22] Although we conclude that the City Planner’s email to the ZBA was wholly inappropriate, we must review the record to determine if it caused prejudice to Fitanides. 5 “A party before an adminis *1095 trative board is entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing....” Lane Const. Corp., 2008 ME 45, ¶ 29 , 942 A.2d 1202 .

2015See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2004 ME 32, ¶ 36 , 843 A.2d 8 . [¶ 22] Although we conclude that the City Planner’s email to the ZBA was wholly inappropriate, we must review the record to determine if it caused prejudice to Fitanides. 5 “A party before an adminis *1095 trative board is entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing....” Lane Const. Corp., 2008 ME 45, ¶ 29 , 942 A.2d 1202 .

2019Prot., 2013 ME 25 , ~ 23, 61 A.3d 689 .

2015(Jd.) This alleged failure to carry out a proper review, Petitioner argues, prevented Petitioner from going to the Board with any type of sufficient review and feedback. (!d. at 14.) Petitioner further argues that the Hearing Officer demonstrated bias by failing to acknowledge the testimony of Christy Cross, from the DOT, that it was impossible for Petitioner to perform her essential job duties on February 22, 2013. (!d.) "Due process requires a fair and unbiased hearing." See Friends ofMaine's Mountains v. Ed. ofEnvtl Prot., 2013 NIE 25, ~ 23, 61 A.3d 689 (citation omitted).

2018"In the context of municipal planning boards, ... due process entitles a party 'to a fair and unbiased hearing."' Duffy v. Town ofBerwick, 2013 ME 105 , ,r 17, 82 A.3d 148 (quoting Lane Constr.

2018"In the context of municipal planning boards, ... due process entitles a party 'to a fair and unbiased hearing."' Duffy v. Town ofBerwick, 2013 ME 105 , ,r 17, 82 A.3d 148 (quoting Lane Constr.

2004First, Plaintiff Dion alleges that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing because of the Chairman’s participation in the proceedings. “[A]n applicant before an administrative board is entitled under the due process clause of the United States and Maine constitutions to a fair and unbiased hearing.” Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898, 902 (Me. 1993) (citing Mutton Hill Estates, Inc. v. Town of Oakland, 468 A.2d 989 (Me. 1983).) In Mutton Hill Estates, “the board had invited admittedly biased opponents of the subdivision to participate in an ex parte session when the board made i

2004First, Plaintiff Dion alleges that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing because of the Chairman’s participation in the proceedings. “[A]n applicant before an administrative board is entitled under the due process clause of the United States and Maine constitutions to a fair and unbiased hearing.” Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898, 902 (Me. 1993) (citing Mutton Hill Estates, Inc. v. Town of Oakland, 468 A.2d 989 (Me. 1983).) In Mutton Hill Estates, “the board had invited admittedly biased opponents of the subdivision to participate in an ex parte session when the board made i

2015See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2004 ME 32, ¶ 36 , 843 A.2d 8 . [¶ 22] Although we conclude that the City Planner’s email to the ZBA was wholly inappropriate, we must review the record to determine if it caused prejudice to Fitanides. 5 “A party before an adminis *1095 trative board is entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing....” Lane Const. Corp., 2008 ME 45, ¶ 29 , 942 A.2d 1202 .

2015See Fitanides v. City of Saco, 2004 ME 32, ¶ 36 , 843 A.2d 8 . [¶ 22] Although we conclude that the City Planner’s email to the ZBA was wholly inappropriate, we must review the record to determine if it caused prejudice to Fitanides. 5 “A party before an adminis *1095 trative board is entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing....” Lane Const. Corp., 2008 ME 45, ¶ 29 , 942 A.2d 1202 .

2001See Penobscot Area Housing Development Corp. v. City of Brewer, — 434 A.2d 14 , 20 n. 7 (Me. 1981). administrative or governmental proceeding are entitled "to a fair and unbiased hearing." Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 625 A.2d 898, 902 (Me. 1993).