Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilcox v. City of Portlandgreen2 sentences2022Because the summary judgment record has “left unresolved the question of the applicability of insurance to indemnify the City for the claims presented in this case,” Wilcox, 2009 ME 53, ¶ 12 , 970 A.2d 295 , and the City admits that it “may or may not have such coverage in its policy,” it would be premature for us to consider the MTCA immunity issues presented in this appeal. 2022Because the summary judgment record has “left unresolved the question of the applicability of insurance to indemnify the City for the claims presented in this case,” Wilcox, 2009 ME 53, ¶ 12 , 970 A.2d 295 , and the City admits that it “may or may not have such coverage in its policy,” it would be premature for us to consider the MTCA immunity issues presented in this appeal. | 1 | 3 |
Kennedy v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Ctr., 559 A.2d 358, 360 (Me. 1989); Taylor v. Herst, 537 A.2d 1163, 1165 (Me. 1988). [¶26] We have also extended MTCA immunity protection to a private individual acting as a guardian ad litem in a judicial proceeding, Kennedy v. State, 1999 ME 85, ¶¶ 9, 12 , 730 A.2d 1252 (stating that a guardian ad litem essentially functions as the court's investigative agent, not strictly as legal 13 counsel to a child client), and a private attorney acting as a municipality’s attorney, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios v. Ayotte, 606 A.2d 780, 782 (Me. 1992) (“Ayotte’s designation as an independent contr 2020Ctr., 559 A.2d 358, 360 (Me. 1989); Taylor v. Herst, 537 A.2d 1163, 1165 (Me. 1988). [¶26] We have also extended MTCA immunity protection to a private individual acting as a guardian ad litem in a judicial proceeding, Kennedy v. State, 1999 ME 85, ¶¶ 9, 12 , 730 A.2d 1252 (stating that a guardian ad litem essentially functions as the court's investigative agent, not strictly as legal 13 counsel to a child client), and a private attorney acting as a municipality’s attorney, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios v. Ayotte, 606 A.2d 780, 782 (Me. 1992) (“Ayotte’s designation as an independent contr | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Maine Medical Centergreen1 sentence2020Ctr., 559 A.2d 358, 360 (Me. 1989); Taylor v. Herst, 537 A.2d 1163, 1165 (Me. 1988). [¶26] We have also extended MTCA immunity protection to a private individual acting as a guardian ad litem in a judicial proceeding, Kennedy v. State, 1999 ME 85, ¶¶ 9, 12 , 730 A.2d 1252 (stating that a guardian ad litem essentially functions as the court's investigative agent, not strictly as legal 13 counsel to a child client), and a private attorney acting as a municipality’s attorney, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios v. Ayotte, 606 A.2d 780, 782 (Me. 1992) (“Ayotte’s designation as an independent contr | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Herstgreen1 sentence2020Ctr., 559 A.2d 358, 360 (Me. 1989); Taylor v. Herst, 537 A.2d 1163, 1165 (Me. 1988). [¶26] We have also extended MTCA immunity protection to a private individual acting as a guardian ad litem in a judicial proceeding, Kennedy v. State, 1999 ME 85, ¶¶ 9, 12 , 730 A.2d 1252 (stating that a guardian ad litem essentially functions as the court's investigative agent, not strictly as legal 13 counsel to a child client), and a private attorney acting as a municipality’s attorney, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios v. Ayotte, 606 A.2d 780, 782 (Me. 1992) (“Ayotte’s designation as an independent contr | 1 | 1 |
Preti v. Ayottegreen1 sentence2020Ctr., 559 A.2d 358, 360 (Me. 1989); Taylor v. Herst, 537 A.2d 1163, 1165 (Me. 1988). [¶26] We have also extended MTCA immunity protection to a private individual acting as a guardian ad litem in a judicial proceeding, Kennedy v. State, 1999 ME 85, ¶¶ 9, 12 , 730 A.2d 1252 (stating that a guardian ad litem essentially functions as the court's investigative agent, not strictly as legal 13 counsel to a child client), and a private attorney acting as a municipality’s attorney, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios v. Ayotte, 606 A.2d 780, 782 (Me. 1992) (“Ayotte’s designation as an independent contr | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Grahamgreen2 sentences2020See Doe v. Graham, 2009 ME 88, ¶¶ 14-17 , 977 A.2d 391 ; Lever v. Acadia Hosp. 2020See Doe v. Graham, 2009 ME 88, ¶¶ 14-17 , 977 A.2d 391 ; Lever v. Acadia Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Leach v. Bettersgreen1 sentence2014See generally Leach v. Betters, 599 A.2d 424, 426 (Me.1991) (assuming without deciding that the MTCA’s discretionary immunity provisions did not apply to shield defendant police officers from a claim alleging a violation of a statute that prohibited wanton and oppressive conduct in connection with making an arrest). [¶ 51] While the absolute immunity provision of section 8111(1) of the MTCA would bar a claim against Dr. Kem-merer, even perhaps an MCRA claim, based on negligence or carelessness, it does not bar this particular MCRA claim alleging violation of and disregard for the statutory man | 1 | 1 |
Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Institutegreen1 sentence2009See Darling, 535 A.2d at 430 . 7 Defendant Thomas Bissell's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Thomas Bissell was acting within the scope of his employment. | 1 | 1 |
Clockedile v. State Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2003The Act provides sovernmental entities with immunity from suit for any tort action for damages, subject only to statutorily created and narrowly construed exceptions. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (2002); Clocke ile v. State Dept. of Ou Transp., 437 A.2d 187, 189 (Me.1981) (citing Cushing v. Conen, 420 A.2a The MTCA provides an exception to governmental immunity for certain negligent acts cr omissions relating to (1) the ownership; maintenance or use of vehicles, machinery or equipment; (2) the construction, operation, or maintenance of public buildings or their appurtenances; (3) the discharge of pol | 1 | 1 |
Sargent v. Buckleygreen2 sentences1999See Sargent v. Buckley, 1997 ME 159, ¶ 10 , 697 A.2d 1272, 1275 . [¶ 4] The MTCA provides immunity to all governmental entities from suit on all tort claims seeking recovery for damages, “except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8103-8104-A. Section 8104-A provides the exceptions to governmental immunity at issue in this case: [A] governmental entity is liable for property damage, bodily injury or death in the following instances. 1. 1999See Sargent v. Buckley, 1997 ME 159, ¶ 10 , 697 A.2d 1272, 1275 . [¶ 4] The MTCA provides immunity to all governmental entities from suit on all tort claims seeking recovery for damages, “except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8103-8104-A. Section 8104-A provides the exceptions to governmental immunity at issue in this case: [A] governmental entity is liable for property damage, bodily injury or death in the following instances. 1. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2022“Absent a dispute of material fact, whether or not a governmental entity is entitled to immunity is a question of law that we review de novo.” McDonald v. City of Portland, 2020 ME 119, ¶ 11 , 239 A.3d 662 . [¶6] “The MTCA provides immunity to all governmental entities from suit on all tort claims seeking recovery for damages, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ME 67, ¶ 4 , 728 A.2d 673 (quotation marks omitted). 2022“Absent a dispute of material fact, whether or not a governmental entity is entitled to immunity is a question of law that we review de novo.” McDonald v. City of Portland, 2020 ME 119, ¶ 11 , 239 A.3d 662 . [¶6] “The MTCA provides immunity to all governmental entities from suit on all tort claims seeking recovery for damages, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ME 67, ¶ 4 , 728 A.2d 673 (quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2019–2022 |
Estate of Albert Bean Sr. v. City of Bangor
green
2 sentences2026DISCUSSION [¶7] Although appeals from the denial of summary judgment are interlocutory and thus generally barred by the final judgment rule, appeals from the “denial of a dispositive motion asserting immunity from suit are immediately reviewable.” Est. of Bean, 2022 ME 30, ¶ 4 , 275 A.3d 324 (quoting 2 In Count 3, Fisher did not assert a separate cause of action but instead sought to negate a defense by alleging that the defendants waived MTCA immunity by accepting federal grants. 4 Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 16 , 922 A.2d 484 ). 2026DISCUSSION [¶7] Although appeals from the denial of summary judgment are interlocutory and thus generally barred by the final judgment rule, appeals from the “denial of a dispositive motion asserting immunity from suit are immediately reviewable.” Est. of Bean, 2022 ME 30, ¶ 4 , 275 A.3d 324 (quoting 2 In Count 3, Fisher did not assert a separate cause of action but instead sought to negate a defense by alleging that the defendants waived MTCA immunity by accepting federal grants. 4 Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 16 , 922 A.2d 484 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River
green
2 sentences2026DISCUSSION [¶7] Although appeals from the denial of summary judgment are interlocutory and thus generally barred by the final judgment rule, appeals from the “denial of a dispositive motion asserting immunity from suit are immediately reviewable.” Est. of Bean, 2022 ME 30, ¶ 4 , 275 A.3d 324 (quoting 2 In Count 3, Fisher did not assert a separate cause of action but instead sought to negate a defense by alleging that the defendants waived MTCA immunity by accepting federal grants. 4 Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 16 , 922 A.2d 484 ). 2026DISCUSSION [¶7] Although appeals from the denial of summary judgment are interlocutory and thus generally barred by the final judgment rule, appeals from the “denial of a dispositive motion asserting immunity from suit are immediately reviewable.” Est. of Bean, 2022 ME 30, ¶ 4 , 275 A.3d 324 (quoting 2 In Count 3, Fisher did not assert a separate cause of action but instead sought to negate a defense by alleging that the defendants waived MTCA immunity by accepting federal grants. 4 Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 16 , 922 A.2d 484 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Karen S. Klein v. University of Maine System
green
2 sentences2022Sys., 2022 ME 17, ¶ 6 , 271 A.3d 777 . 2022Sys., 2022 ME 17, ¶ 6 , 271 A.3d 777 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Robin McDonald v. City of Portland
green
2 sentences2022“Absent a dispute of material fact, whether or not a governmental entity is entitled to immunity is a question of law that we review de novo.” McDonald v. City of Portland, 2020 ME 119, ¶ 11 , 239 A.3d 662 . [¶6] “The MTCA provides immunity to all governmental entities from suit on all tort claims seeking recovery for damages, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ME 67, ¶ 4 , 728 A.2d 673 (quotation marks omitted). 2022“Absent a dispute of material fact, whether or not a governmental entity is entitled to immunity is a question of law that we review de novo.” McDonald v. City of Portland, 2020 ME 119, ¶ 11 , 239 A.3d 662 . [¶6] “The MTCA provides immunity to all governmental entities from suit on all tort claims seeking recovery for damages, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ME 67, ¶ 4 , 728 A.2d 673 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Linda J. Clifford v. MaineGeneral Medical Center
green
1 sentence2022See Clifford, 2014 :t\IB 60, ,r 51, 91 A.3d 567 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Norton v. Hall
green
2 sentences2021Specifically, the Plaintiff presents the Law Court's decision in Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 , 834 A.2d 928 and subsequent legislation passed in response. 2021Specifically, the Plaintiff presents the Law Court's decision in Norton v. Hall, 2003 ME 118 , 834 A.2d 928 and subsequent legislation passed in response. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Seth T. Carey v. Board of Overseers of the Bar
green
2 sentences2020Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 , ¶ 19, 192 A.3d 589 ; Clifford v. MaineGeneral Med. 2020Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 , ¶ 19, 192 A.3d 589 ; Clifford v. MaineGeneral Med. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Day's Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway
green
2 sentences2020To determine whether a party or entity is a governmental employee pursuant to the MTCA, we look to 14 M.R.S. § 8102(1), which defines an “[e]mployee” as “a person acting on behalf of a governmental entity in any official capacity, whether temporarily or permanently, and whether with or without compensation from local, state or federal funds.” See Day’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016 ME 121, ¶¶ 15-19 , 145 A.3d 1030 (concluding that a private construction contractor is a governmental employee entitled to MTCA immunity when acting at the direction of the government and performing a gove 2020To determine whether a party or entity is a governmental employee pursuant to the MTCA, we look to 14 M.R.S. § 8102(1), which defines an “[e]mployee” as “a person acting on behalf of a governmental entity in any official capacity, whether temporarily or permanently, and whether with or without compensation from local, state or federal funds.” See Day’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016 ME 121, ¶¶ 15-19 , 145 A.3d 1030 (concluding that a private construction contractor is a governmental employee entitled to MTCA immunity when acting at the direction of the government and performing a gove | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mueller v. Penobscot Valley Hospital
green
2 sentences2019In support of this position, Plaintiffs rely on Mueller v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 538 A.2d 294 (Me. 1988), for the proposition that “the Tort Claims Act clearly does not apply to contract actions. . . .” Id. at 297 . 2019In support of this position, Plaintiffs rely on Mueller v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 538 A.2d 294 (Me. 1988), for the proposition that “the Tort Claims Act clearly does not apply to contract actions. . . .” Id. at 297 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Adriance v. Town of Standish
green
2 sentences2007It does not constitute a waiver of the Town’s MTCA immunity to benefit a third party. [¶ 22] Our opinion in Adriance v. Town of Standish, 687 A.2d 238 (Me.1996), addressing a MTCA claim for an injury at a transfer station also is of no help to Priscilla Reid’s claim. 2007It does not constitute a waiver of the Town’s MTCA immunity to benefit a third party. [¶ 22] Our opinion in Adriance v. Town of Standish, 687 A.2d 238 (Me.1996), addressing a MTCA claim for an injury at a transfer station also is of no help to Priscilla Reid’s claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.