burden of proving defense in Maine

2022State v. Cote, 2015 ME 78, ¶¶ 11, 14-15 , 118 A.3d 805 .

2022State v. Cote, 2015 ME 78, ¶¶ 11, 14-15 , 118 A.3d 805 .

2009See King v. Town of Monmouth, 1997 ME 151, ¶ 7 , 697 A.2d 837, 840 .

2009See King v. Town of Monmouth, 1997 ME 151, ¶ 7 , 697 A.2d 837, 840 .

2009See ABN AMRO Mortgage Group v. Willis, 2003 ME 98, ¶5 , 829 A.2d 527, 529 ; see also U.F.T.A. § 8, cmt. 1 (1984). 5 [¶ 12] Generally, sufficiency of the evidence challenges by a party who did not bear the burden of proof at trial are resolved by clear error review.

2009See ABN AMRO Mortgage Group v. Willis, 2003 ME 98, ¶5 , 829 A.2d 527, 529 ; see also U.F.T.A. § 8, cmt. 1 (1984). 5 [¶ 12] Generally, sufficiency of the evidence challenges by a party who did not bear the burden of proof at trial are resolved by clear error review.

2004State v. Curtis 552 A.2d 530,531 (Me. 1988).

2003“On appeal, the party objecting to a referee’s report bears the burden of proving error by the referee.” Marja Corp. v. Allain, 622 A.2d 1182, 1184 (Me.1993).

1998See City of Prescott, 803 P.2d at 897 n. 4; see also Common Council v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc., 440 N.E.2d 726, 729 (Ind.App.1982) (stating in discussion of open meeting law that “exceptions to a statute and its operation should be strictly construed by placing the burden of proving the exception upon the party claiming it”); News & Observer Publ’g Co. v. Interim Bd. of Educ., 29 N.C.App. 37 , 223 S.E.2d 580, 586-87 (1976) (exceptions to open meeting law should be strictly construed and “those seeking to come within the exceptions should have the burden of justifying their action”); Town of R

1998See City of Prescott, 803 P.2d at 897 n. 4; see also Common Council v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc., 440 N.E.2d 726, 729 (Ind.App.1982) (stating in discussion of open meeting law that “exceptions to a statute and its operation should be strictly construed by placing the burden of proving the exception upon the party claiming it”); News & Observer Publ’g Co. v. Interim Bd. of Educ., 29 N.C.App. 37 , 223 S.E.2d 580, 586-87 (1976) (exceptions to open meeting law should be strictly construed and “those seeking to come within the exceptions should have the burden of justifying their action”); Town of R

1998See Philbriek, 436 A.2d at 854 (noting that the State bears the burden of proving an exception to the general rule that warrant-less searches are per se unreasonable). [¶ 8] The court determined correctly that the pond is not within the curtilage of Boyington’s home.

1998Comm’n, 20 Conn.App. 671 , 569 A.2d 1149, 1150 (1990) (“The burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption to [the rule favoring disclosure] rests squarely on' the party claiming the exemption.”). [¶ 20] We next address the practical question of the method by which the parties to an FAA claim may introduce evidence outside the record in the Superior Court proceedings.

1998Comm’n, 20 Conn.App. 671 , 569 A.2d 1149, 1150 (1990) (“The burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption to [the rule favoring disclosure] rests squarely on' the party claiming the exemption.”). [¶ 20] We next address the practical question of the method by which the parties to an FAA claim may introduce evidence outside the record in the Superior Court proceedings.

1998See City of Prescott, 803 P.2d at 897 n. 4; see also Common Council v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc., 440 N.E.2d 726, 729 (Ind.App.1982) (stating in discussion of open meeting law that “exceptions to a statute and its operation should be strictly construed by placing the burden of proving the exception upon the party claiming it”); News & Observer Publ’g Co. v. Interim Bd. of Educ., 29 N.C.App. 37 , 223 S.E.2d 580, 586-87 (1976) (exceptions to open meeting law should be strictly construed and “those seeking to come within the exceptions should have the burden of justifying their action”); Town of R

1998See City of Prescott, 803 P.2d at 897 n. 4; see also Common Council v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc., 440 N.E.2d 726, 729 (Ind.App.1982) (stating in discussion of open meeting law that “exceptions to a statute and its operation should be strictly construed by placing the burden of proving the exception upon the party claiming it”); News & Observer Publ’g Co. v. Interim Bd. of Educ., 29 N.C.App. 37 , 223 S.E.2d 580, 586-87 (1976) (exceptions to open meeting law should be strictly construed and “those seeking to come within the exceptions should have the burden of justifying their action”); Town of R

1993Calthorpe v. Abrahamson, 423 A.2d 231, 234 (Me.1980) (Calthorpe I). *1185 (1) possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like; Marja first contends that the northern edge of the old roadway is not a “visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like.” Here, the referee found the old roadway readily discernible visually by the edge of vegetation and the remains of fences and stone walls.

1992See Estate of Lloyd Whitlock, 576 A.2d at 751 ; Luce v. Hoefler, 464 A.2d 213 , *1176 215 (Me.1983).

1980Cunningham v. Cunningham, Me., 314 A.2d 834, 839 (1974).

1969State v. Lawrence (1870) 57 Me. 574, 583, 584 (proof of insanity); State v. Park (1963) 159 Me. 328, 337 , 193 A.2d 1 (affirming the Lawrence rule after statutory adoption of Durham Rule); State v. Quigley (1938) 135 Me. 435 , 199 A. 269 (voluntary intoxication to negative specific intent) and State v. Rowe (Me.1968) 238 A.2d 217, 222 (proving statutory exceptions).

1969State v. Lawrence (1870) 57 Me. 574, 583, 584 (proof of insanity); State v. Park (1963) 159 Me. 328, 337 , 193 A.2d 1 (affirming the Lawrence rule after statutory adoption of Durham Rule); State v. Quigley (1938) 135 Me. 435 , 199 A. 269 (voluntary intoxication to negative specific intent) and State v. Rowe (Me.1968) 238 A.2d 217, 222 (proving statutory exceptions).