15 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
New England Whitewater Center, Inc. v. Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlifegreen2 sentences2003This prudential rule is premised on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, and reflects ‘simple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of administration, and to litigants’ and insures that the agency and not the courts has the first opportunity to pass upon the claims of the litigants.” Berry v. Maine State Retirement System, 663 A.2d 14 (Me. 1995) citing New England Whitewater Center, Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). 1995This prudential rule is premised on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, and reflects “ ‘[sjimple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of admin istration, and to litigants,’ and ensures that the agency and not the courts has the first opportunity to pass upon the claims of the litigants.” Id. at 59-60 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Minster v. Town of Graygreen2 sentences2003“We have previously recognized an exception to the prudential rule requiring an exhaustion of administrative remedies ‘when the plaintiff’s complaint alleges persuasive grounds for relief which are beyond the jurisdiction of the administrative agency to determine, and when it would be futile for the plaintiffs to complete the administrative appeal process.’” Berry v. Maine State Retirement System, 10 663 A.2d at 15 , citing Minster v. Town of Gray, 584 A.2d 646 (Me. 1990); see also Valente v. Bd. of Environ. 1995Cf. Minster v. Town of Gray, 10 584 A.2d 646, 648 (Me.1990) (“We have previously recognized an exception to the prudential rule requiring an exhaustion of administrative remedies “when the plaintiffs complaint alleges persuasive grounds for relief which are beyond the jurisdiction of the administrative agency to determine, and when-it would be futile for the plaintiffs to complete the administrative appeal process.’ ”). . | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021The rule’s purpose “is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations,” and it will be applied “to situations in which this purpose is thought most efficaciously served.” Id. at 236-37 (quotation marks omitted). 2021The exclusionary rule “is a prudential doctrine created by th[e] [United States Supreme] Court to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Broadwater v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Harding v. Comm’r of Marine Res., 510 A.2d 583, 536 (Me. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Central Maine Power Co.green1 sentence2000“The final judgment rule is a prudential rule, designed to avoid piecemeal litigation and to preserve our limited judicial resources.” Moore v. Central Maine Power Co., 673 A.2d 699, 701 (Me. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pinkhamgreen1 sentence1993See State v. Pinkham, 586 A.2d 730, 731 (Me.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Stanton v. Trustees of St. Joseph's Collegegreen1 sentence1990Joseph’s College, 233 A.2d at 724 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Maine Central Railroad v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroadgreen1 sentence1986See Maine Central Railroad v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad, 395 A.2d 1107 , 1113 n. 7 (Me.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Kittery v. Whitegreen1 sentence1986Contrary to the loose language of some of our opinions, see, e.g., Town of Kittery v. White, 415 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me. *536 1980) (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no final judgment), our final judgment rule is not jurisdictional but merely a prudential rule to avoid piecemeal review and promote judicial economy. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Regulation Commission
green
2 sentences2017“The requirement of a final judgment for appellate review, although not jurisdictional, is a long-standing prudential rule .,, intended to avoid piecemeal appeals and to promote the efficient and effective resolution of legal disputes.” Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Regulation Comm’n, 2012 ME 36, ¶ 16 , 39 A.3d 74 (citation omitted). 2017“The requirement of a final judgment for appellate review, although not jurisdictional, is a long-standing prudential rule .,, intended to avoid piecemeal appeals and to promote the efficient and effective resolution of legal disputes.” Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Regulation Comm’n, 2012 ME 36, ¶ 16 , 39 A.3d 74 (citation omitted). | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Wagner v. Secretary of State
green
2 sentences2020Plaintiffs acknowledge that Maine generally follows the majority rule that pre-election challenges to the substantive validity of a citizen initiative are not ripe. 5 However, they argue that there are exceptions to this rule and that the Law Court's decision in Wagner v. Secretary ofState, 663 A.2d 564 (Me. 1995), allows the court to consider whether the proposed initiative legislation involves "a subject matter beyond the electorate's grant of authority." 663 A.2d at 567 . 2020Plaintiffs acknowledge that Maine generally follows the majority rule that pre-election challenges to the substantive validity of a citizen initiative are not ripe. 5 However, they argue that there are exceptions to this rule and that the Law Court's decision in Wagner v. Secretary ofState, 663 A.2d 564 (Me. 1995), allows the court to consider whether the proposed initiative legislation involves "a subject matter beyond the electorate's grant of authority." 663 A.2d at 567 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Berry v. BD. OF TRUSTEES, RETIREMENT SYS.
green
2 sentences2003“We have previously recognized an exception to the prudential rule requiring an exhaustion of administrative remedies ‘when the plaintiff’s complaint alleges persuasive grounds for relief which are beyond the jurisdiction of the administrative agency to determine, and when it would be futile for the plaintiffs to complete the administrative appeal process.’” Berry v. Maine State Retirement System, 10 663 A.2d at 15 , citing Minster v. Town of Gray, 584 A.2d 646 (Me. 1990); see also Valente v. Bd. of Environ. 2003This prudential rule is premised on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, and reflects ‘simple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of administration, and to litigants’ and insures that the agency and not the courts has the first opportunity to pass upon the claims of the litigants.” Berry v. Maine State Retirement System, 663 A.2d 14 (Me. 1995) citing New England Whitewater Center, Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Valente v. Board of Environmental Protection
green
1 sentence2003Prot., 461 A.2d 716 (Me. 1983). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ryan v. City of Augusta
green
1 sentence1995Ryan, 622 A2d at 76 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co. v. Alexander
green
1 sentence1989The final judgment rule is a prudential rule designed to “advance[] the interest of judicial economy and avoid[ ] piecemeal review.” Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co. v. Alexander, 411 A.2d at 76 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.