18 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Maine v. Nicholas W. Norrisgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Norris, 2023 ME 60, ¶ 33 , 302 A.3d 1 . 12 [¶21] Nonetheless, if an issue was not raised in the trial court and is therefore unpreserved, we review only for obvious error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126, ¶ 35 , 55 A.3d 432 (“Our review of an alleged constitutional violation is de novo.”); State v. Plummer, 2020 ME 143, ¶ 10 , 243 A.3d 1184 (“We review de novo for misapplication of principle the basic sentence imposed at the first step of the analysis . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)). 9 Although Miller references the Due Process Clause in article I, section 6-A of the Maine Constitution, we confine our review to her argument under the federal constitution because she did not sufficiently develop the state constitutional argument before the trial court or on a 2026See State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126, ¶ 35 , 55 A.3d 432 (“Our review of an alleged constitutional violation is de novo.”); State v. Plummer, 2020 ME 143, ¶ 10 , 243 A.3d 1184 (“We review de novo for misapplication of principle the basic sentence imposed at the first step of the analysis . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)). 9 Although Miller references the Due Process Clause in article I, section 6-A of the Maine Constitution, we confine our review to her argument under the federal constitution because she did not sufficiently develop the state constitutional argument before the trial court or on a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Watermangreen2 sentences2012See State v. Waterman, 2010 ME 45, ¶ 42 , 995 A.2d 243 . 2012See State v. Waterman, 2010 ME 45, ¶ 42 , 995 A.2d 243 . | 1 | 1 |
Burson v. Freemangreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197-98 , 112 S.Ct. 1846 , 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992). 2 Mowles urges us to apply strict scrutiny rather than the less exacting review that the State proposes. [¶ 12] To determine the appropriate level of scrutiny, we must first identify the nature of the speech at issue. 2008See, e.g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197-98 , 112 S.Ct. 1846 , 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992). 2 Mowles urges us to apply strict scrutiny rather than the less exacting review that the State proposes. [¶ 12] To determine the appropriate level of scrutiny, we must first identify the nature of the speech at issue. | 1 | 1 |
Tibbetts v. Tibbettsgreen1 sentence2008See Tibbetts v. Tibbetts, 406 A.2d 70, 76-77 (Me.1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pfeilgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Pfeil, 1998 ME 245, ¶ 15 , 720 A.2d 573, 577 . 2007See State v. Pfeil, 1998 ME 245, ¶ 15 , 720 A.2d 573, 577 . | 1 | 1 |
Garry D. Lloyd v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Schardt, 414 F.3d at 1036 ; Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608, 613-15 (3d Cir.2005) (determining under Booker not Blakely); United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 848-49 (10th Cir.2005); Johnson, 142 P.3d at 726-28 . [¶ 22] The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Summerlin determines the first step of the inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joshua Price, Jr.green1 sentence2007See, e.g., Schardt, 414 F.3d at 1036 ; Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608, 613-15 (3d Cir.2005) (determining under Booker not Blakely); United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 848-49 (10th Cir.2005); Johnson, 142 P.3d at 726-28 . [¶ 22] The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Summerlin determines the first step of the inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
Dale E. Schardt v. Alice Paynegreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Schardt, 414 F.3d at 1036 ; Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608, 613-15 (3d Cir.2005) (determining under Booker not Blakely); United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 848-49 (10th Cir.2005); Johnson, 142 P.3d at 726-28 . [¶ 22] The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Summerlin determines the first step of the inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
Hicks v. City of Westbrookgreen1 sentence2003STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 7] The first step in the analysis is the determination of prevailing party status, and “is a question of fact, subject to review for clear error.” Hicks v. City of Westbrook, 649 A.2d 328, 329 (Me.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Pine Tree Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen1 sentence2003Comm’n, 634 A.2d 1302, 1304 (Me.1993)). [¶ 16] The first step of our inquiry is to determine whether section 3206-A(2) is ambiguous; that is, “reasonably susceptible of different interpretations,” without deferring to the Commission’s conclusion that the statutory language is ambiguous. | 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 of Maine v. Noah Gaston
green
2 sentences2024“We review the trial court’s application of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the maximum sentence for abuse of discretion.” State v. Gaston, 2021 ME 25, ¶ 36 , 250 A.3d 137 (quotation marks omitted). [¶27] Contrary to Lovejoy’s contention, the court did not “double-count” the consideration of Lovejoy’s mental state at the time of the offense and his post-murder conduct. 2021The court began the first step of the analysis by discussing the details specific to this murder that spoke to its “nature and seriousness.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2021–2024 |
State v. Holland
green
2 sentences2020Then, the court must “determine the maximum term of imprisonment to be imposed by considering all other relevant sentencing 27 factors, both aggravating and mitigating, appropriate to the case.” Id. § 1602(1)(B). [¶56] We “review the court’s determination of the basic sentence on the first step of the analysis de novo for misapplication of law.” State v. Holland, 2012 ME 2, ¶ 38 , 34 A.3d 1130 . 2020Then, the court must “determine the maximum term of imprisonment to be imposed by considering all other relevant sentencing 27 factors, both aggravating and mitigating, appropriate to the case.” Id. § 1602(1)(B). [¶56] We “review the court’s determination of the basic sentence on the first step of the analysis de novo for misapplication of law.” State v. Holland, 2012 ME 2, ¶ 38 , 34 A.3d 1130 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State of Maine v. Brian Nichols
green
2 sentences2020We also review “the sentencing court’s determination of the basic period of incarceration for misapplication of sentencing principles” and “for an abuse of the court’s sentencing power.” State v. Nichols, 2013 ME 71, ¶ 13 , 72 A.3d 503 . 2020We also review “the sentencing court’s determination of the basic period of incarceration for misapplication of sentencing principles” and “for an abuse of the court’s sentencing power.” State v. Nichols, 2013 ME 71, ¶ 13 , 72 A.3d 503 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State of Maine v. Theodore S. Stanislaw
green
2 sentences2020Stanislaw II, 2013 ME 43, ¶ 17 , 65 A.3d 1242 . 2020Stanislaw II, 2013 ME 43, ¶ 17 , 65 A.3d 1242 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State of Maine v. Jahneiro Plummer
green
2 sentences2026See State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126, ¶ 35 , 55 A.3d 432 (“Our review of an alleged constitutional violation is de novo.”); State v. Plummer, 2020 ME 143, ¶ 10 , 243 A.3d 1184 (“We review de novo for misapplication of principle the basic sentence imposed at the first step of the analysis . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)). 9 Although Miller references the Due Process Clause in article I, section 6-A of the Maine Constitution, we confine our review to her argument under the federal constitution because she did not sufficiently develop the state constitutional argument before the trial court or on a 2026See State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126, ¶ 35 , 55 A.3d 432 (“Our review of an alleged constitutional violation is de novo.”); State v. Plummer, 2020 ME 143, ¶ 10 , 243 A.3d 1184 (“We review de novo for misapplication of principle the basic sentence imposed at the first step of the analysis . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)). 9 Although Miller references the Due Process Clause in article I, section 6-A of the Maine Constitution, we confine our review to her argument under the federal constitution because she did not sufficiently develop the state constitutional argument before the trial court or on a | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State of Maine v. Dustan J. Bentley
green
2 sentences2024The purpose of the first step of the analysis is to place the crime “at a point on the continuum for the type of criminal conduct involved.” State v. Bentley, 2021 ME 39, ¶ 15 , 254 A.3d 1171 (quotation marks omitted). 2024The purpose of the first step of the analysis is to place the crime “at a point on the continuum for the type of criminal conduct involved.” State v. Bentley, 2021 ME 39, ¶ 15 , 254 A.3d 1171 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Gray
green
2 sentences2024Sentencing courts may “refer to the same facts in the various steps of the 20 sentencing analysis so long as the court is weighing different considerations at each step.” State v. Gray, 2006 ME 29, ¶ 13 , 893 A.2d 611 (emphasis added and quotation marks omitted). [¶26] Lovejoy does not challenge the basic sentence set by the court in the first step of the analysis; he challenges the court’s analysis in the second step supporting the maximum sentence of forty-two years. 2024Sentencing courts may “refer to the same facts in the various steps of the 20 sentencing analysis so long as the court is weighing different considerations at each step.” State v. Gray, 2006 ME 29, ¶ 13 , 893 A.2d 611 (emphasis added and quotation marks omitted). [¶26] Lovejoy does not challenge the basic sentence set by the court in the first step of the analysis; he challenges the court’s analysis in the second step supporting the maximum sentence of forty-two years. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State of Maine v. Gabriel J. Hansen
green
2 sentences2020We review the sentencing court’s analysis at each step to determine “whether [it] disregarded the relevant sentencing factors or abused its sentencing power.” State v. Hansen, 2020 ME 43, ¶ 27 , 228 A.3d 1082 (quoting State v. Stanislaw, 2013 ME 43, ¶ 17 , 65 A.3d 1242 ). [¶11] By its nature, a double-counting claim relates to multiple steps of the sentencing analysis. 2020We review the sentencing court’s analysis at each step to determine “whether [it] disregarded the relevant sentencing factors or abused its sentencing power.” State v. Hansen, 2020 ME 43, ¶ 27 , 228 A.3d 1082 (quoting State v. Stanislaw, 2013 ME 43, ¶ 17 , 65 A.3d 1242 ). [¶11] By its nature, a double-counting claim relates to multiple steps of the sentencing analysis. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Maine Human Rights Commission v. City of Auburn
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 1265 . 35 [¶55] Here, Dussault satisfies the first step of the analysis: Coach Lantern’s refusal to include the HUD tenancy addendum in its leases effectively excludes one hundred percent of Section 8 recipients from renting from Coach Lantern. 2014Id. at 1265 . [¶ 55] Here, Dussault satisfies the first step of the analysis: Coach Lantern’s refusal to include the HUD tenancy addendum in its leases effectively excludes one hundred percent of Section 8 recipients from renting from Coach Lantern. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Stanislaw
green
1 sentence2013Id. ¶ 11 & n. 8. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fuhrmann v. Staples the Office Superstore East, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2007In Summerlin , the Court considered whether a new procedural rule announced in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. 2007In Summerlin , the Court considered whether a new procedural rule announced in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2007See, e.g., Schardt, 414 F.3d at 1036 ; Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608, 613-15 (3d Cir.2005) (determining under Booker not Blakely); United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 848-49 (10th Cir.2005); Johnson, 142 P.3d at 726-28 . [¶ 22] The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Summerlin determines the first step of the inquiry. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
green
1 sentence2000The court draws guidance from the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. ___ , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.