14 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1959–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Maine v. Abdirahman H. Haji-Hassangreen1 sentence2019See State v. Haji-Hassan , 2018 ME 42 , ¶ 14, 182 A.3d 145 (where we "assum[ed], without deciding, that [a defendant's] arguments and the court's ruling at the hearing on the State's motion in limine served to preserve the objection"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haji-Hassangreen1 sentence2019See State v. Haji-Hassan , 2018 ME 42 , ¶ 14, 182 A.3d 145 (where we "assum[ed], without deciding, that [a defendant's] arguments and the court's ruling at the hearing on the State's motion in limine served to preserve the objection"). | 1 | 1 |
DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES ON BEHALF OF HERD v. Hartgreen1 sentence2006They added a brief argument that school administrators perform a discretionary act when they supervise teachers. .The denial of summary judgment on the due process claim does not constitute a final judgment, see Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hart, 639 A.2d 107, 107 (Me.1994), and Keegan and Tourtilotte have not appealed from the court’s ruling on this claim. . | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Sloangreen2 sentences2001See Morris, 1997 ME 179, ¶ 7 , 698 A.2d at 1041 ; Sirois, 585 A.2d at 185 . [¶ 16] We have held that application of nonmutual collateral estoppel can occur “on a case by case basis if it serves the ends of justice.” State Mut. 2001See Morris, 1997 ME 179, ¶ 7 , 698 A.2d at 1041 ; Sirois, 585 A.2d at 185 . [¶ 16] We have held that application of nonmutual collateral estoppel can occur “on a case by case basis if it serves the ends of justice.” State Mut. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gerald N. Klaubergreen1 sentence1990See U.S. v. Klauber, 611 F.2d 512, 516-17 (4th Cir.1979) (grand jury testimony is one possible alternative where witness invokes fifth amendment privilege at trial); State v. Smith, 415 A.2d 553, 559 (Me.1980) (a declarant is unavailable as a witness for purposes of M.R.Evid. 804(a)(1) where exempted from testifying by a court ruling of privilege). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1990See U.S. v. Klauber, 611 F.2d 512, 516-17 (4th Cir.1979) (grand jury testimony is one possible alternative where witness invokes fifth amendment privilege at trial); State v. Smith, 415 A.2d 553, 559 (Me.1980) (a declarant is unavailable as a witness for purposes of M.R.Evid. 804(a)(1) where exempted from testifying by a court ruling of privilege). | 1 | 1 |
Thursby v. Stategreen1 sentence1982The constitutional requirements of due process are satisfied where “the accused is capable of understanding the nature and object of the charges and proceedings against him, of comprehending his own condition in reference thereto, and of conducting in cooperation with his counsel his defense in a rational and reasonable manner.” Thursby v. State, Me., 223 A.2d 61, 66 (1966), quoted in Littlefield v. State, Me., 429 A.2d 1006 , 1009 n.3 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Gendron v. Burnhamgreen1 sentence1959See Gendron v. Burnham, 146 Me. 387, 407 . 58 Am. | 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 v. Allen
green
2 sentences2018We assume, without deciding, that Haji-Hassan's arguments and the court's ruling at the hearing on the State's motion in limine served to preserve the objection, and we therefore apply the clear error and "abuse of discretion standard[s] of review, which [are] more beneficial to [Haji-Hassan] than the obvious error standard." See id. 2018We assume, without deciding, that Haji-Hassan’s arguments and the court’s ruling at the hearing on the State’s motion in limine served to preserve the objection, and we therefore apply the clear error and “abuse of discretion standard[s] of review, which [are] more beneficial to [Haji-Hassan] than the obvious error standard.” See id. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Sirois v. Winslow
green
2 sentences2001See Morris, 1997 ME 179, ¶ 7 , 698 A.2d at 1041 ; Sirois, 585 A.2d at 185 . [¶ 16] We have held that application of nonmutual collateral estoppel can occur "on a case by case basis if it serves the ends of justice." State Mut. 2001See Morris, 1997 ME 179, ¶ 7 , 698 A.2d at 1041 ; Sirois, 585 A.2d at 185 . [¶ 16] We have held that application of nonmutual collateral estoppel can occur “on a case by case basis if it serves the ends of justice.” State Mut. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Smith v. Wade
green
2 sentences1995Although, as noted above, the conduct of the individual defendants did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were acting in "bad faith," it may evidence a "reckless or callous indifference to" the plaintiff's "federally protected rights." Id. 1995Although, as noted above, the conduct of the individual defendants did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were acting in “bad faith,” it may evidence a “reckless or callous indifference to” the plaintiffs “federally protected rights.” Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Tomah
green
2 sentences1990Tomah, 560 A.2d at 576 n. 1. 1990Tomah, 560 A.2d at 576 n. 1. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Stinson
green
1 sentence1984Id. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Littlefield v. State
green
1 sentence1982The constitutional requirements of due process are satisfied where “the accused is capable of understanding the nature and object of the charges and proceedings against him, of comprehending his own condition in reference thereto, and of conducting in cooperation with his counsel his defense in a rational and reasonable manner.” Thursby v. State, Me., 223 A.2d 61, 66 (1966), quoted in Littlefield v. State, Me., 429 A.2d 1006 , 1009 n.3 (1981). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Banville v. Huckins
green
2 sentences1981“When evidence is excluded upon objection and the purpose for which it is offered is not readily apparent, an offer of proof is required.” Banville v. Huckins, Me., 407 A.2d 294 (1979); M.R.Evid. 103(a)(2). 1981"When evidence is excluded upon objection and the purpose for which it is offered is not readily apparent, an offer of proof is required." Banville v. Huckins, Me., 407 A.2d 294 (1979); M.R.Evid. 103(a)(2). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Britt v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1979Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 , 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), declares that it is error to deny an indigent defendant a free transcript of his first trial that ended in a mistrial unless he has available an adequate alternative to the transcript. 2 We recently applied the rule of Britt in State v. Curtis, Me., 399 A.2d 1330 (1979), a decision issued subsequent to both Goodall trials. 1979Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 , 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), declares that it is error to deny an indigent defendant a free transcript of his first trial that ended in a mistrial unless he has available an adequate alternative to the transcript. 2 We recently applied the rule of Britt in State v. Curtis, Me., 399 A.2d 1330 (1979), a decision issued subsequent to both Goodall trials. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Curtis
green
1 sentence1979Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 , 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), declares that it is error to deny an indigent defendant a free transcript of his first trial that ended in a mistrial unless he has available an adequate alternative to the transcript. 2 We recently applied the rule of Britt in State v. Curtis, Me., 399 A.2d 1330 (1979), a decision issued subsequent to both Goodall trials. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Benner
green
1 sentence1967State v. Benner, 64 Me. 267 is a case as close to our point as we have found. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.