11 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Maine v. George Jaimegreen2 sentences2021“As in all criminal cases, the State’s burden remains the same throughout the trial—to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the crime charged, including that the defendant committed the crime.” Id. [¶19] We have stated that alternative-suspect evidence is admissible if “(1) the proffered evidence is otherwise admissible, and (2) the admissible evidence is of sufficient probative value to raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s culpability by establishing a reasonable connection between the alternative suspect and the crime.” Id. ¶ 34 (quotation marks omitted). [¶20] The first 2019See Jaime , 2015 ME 22 , ¶¶ 34-37, 111 A.3d 1050 . | 1 | 2 |
Stewart v. Town of Sedgwickgreen1 sentence2018The proper test is whether a project is "larger in dimension than ... [will] be consistent with existing conditions, use, and character ofthe area,"' or in other words, "the proposed wharf [or pier] may not be so large that it conflicts or interferes with existing conditions, use, and character of the area that would be affected by the wharf [or pier]." Lentine, 599 A.2d at 79 ; see also Stewart, 2002 ME 81 , ,r 10, 797 A.2d 27 (Noting that the Lentine court interpreted the language to mean a project's "size could not.be larger than necessary 2 As noted above, the first part of the test is whe | 1 | 1 |
Lentine v. Town of St. Georgegreen2 sentences2018The proper test is whether a project is "larger in dimension than ... [will] be consistent with existing conditions, use, and character ofthe area,"' or in other words, "the proposed wharf [or pier] may not be so large that it conflicts or interferes with existing conditions, use, and character of the area that would be affected by the wharf [or pier]." Lentine, 599 A.2d at 79 ; see also Stewart, 2002 ME 81 , ,r 10, 797 A.2d 27 (Noting that the Lentine court interpreted the language to mean a project's "size could not.be larger than necessary 2 As noted above, the first part of the test is whe 2018The proper test is whether a project is "larger in dimension than ... [will] be consistent with existing conditions, use, and character ofthe area,"' or in other words, "the proposed wharf [or pier] may not be so large that it conflicts or interferes with existing conditions, use, and character of the area that would be affected by the wharf [or pier]." Lentine, 599 A.2d at 79 ; see also Stewart, 2002 ME 81 , ,r 10, 797 A.2d 27 (Noting that the Lentine court interpreted the language to mean a project's "size could not.be larger than necessary 2 As noted above, the first part of the test is whe | 1 | 1 |
Efstathiou v. Payeurgreen1 sentence2012Efstathiou v. Payeur, 456 A.2d 891, 893 (Me. 1983) (quoting 7 C. | 1 | 1 |
Robert S. Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc.green1 sentence2010Such purposeful availment constitutes sufficient "minimum contacts" for a defendant to "have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Maine." Boit v. Gar-Tee Products, Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 681 (1st Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Adam v. MacDonald Page & Co.green1 sentence2007Adam, 644 A.2d at 463 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 10] Applying the first part of the test, the court’s factual reconstruction of the scope of the personal injury action is supported by competent evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Ibbitson v. Sheridan Corp.green1 sentence2004See Ibbitson v. Sheridan Corp., 422 A.2d 1005, 1008-11 (Me.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Frazier v. Bankamerica Internationalgreen1 sentence1993See Frazier, 593 A.2d at 663 . | 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. Cruthirds
green
2 sentences2019State v. Cruthirds, 2014 ME 86, ¶ 23 , 96 A.3d 80 . 2019State v. Cruthirds, 2014 ME 86, ¶ 23 , 96 A.3d 80 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Estate of Hoch v. Stifel
green
2 sentences2012We have held that Maine’s interest in the litigation, however, “must be beyond mere citizenry ... such as ... the location of witnesses and creditors within its border.” Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124, ¶ 8 , 909 A.2d 221 (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 8] The second part of the test concerns the defendant’s contacts, which “are present when the defendant purposefully directs his or her activities at Maine residents or creates continuing obligations between himself or herself and the residents of Maine.” Estate of Hoch, 2011 ME 24, ¶ 27 , 16 A.3d 137 (quotation marks 2012We have held that Maine’s interest in the litigation, however, “must be beyond mere citizenry ... such as ... the location of witnesses and creditors within its border.” Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124, ¶ 8 , 909 A.2d 221 (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 8] The second part of the test concerns the defendant’s contacts, which “are present when the defendant purposefully directs his or her activities at Maine residents or creates continuing obligations between himself or herself and the residents of Maine.” Estate of Hoch, 2011 ME 24, ¶ 27 , 16 A.3d 137 (quotation marks | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Connelly v. Doucette
green
2 sentences2012We have held that Maine’s interest in the litigation, however, “must be beyond mere citizenry ... such as ... the location of witnesses and creditors within its border.” Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124, ¶ 8 , 909 A.2d 221 (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 8] The second part of the test concerns the defendant’s contacts, which “are present when the defendant purposefully directs his or her activities at Maine residents or creates continuing obligations between himself or herself and the residents of Maine.” Estate of Hoch, 2011 ME 24, ¶ 27 , 16 A.3d 137 (quotation marks 2012We have held that Maine’s interest in the litigation, however, “must be beyond mere citizenry ... such as ... the location of witnesses and creditors within its border.” Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124, ¶ 8 , 909 A.2d 221 (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 8] The second part of the test concerns the defendant’s contacts, which “are present when the defendant purposefully directs his or her activities at Maine residents or creates continuing obligations between himself or herself and the residents of Maine.” Estate of Hoch, 2011 ME 24, ¶ 27 , 16 A.3d 137 (quotation marks | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commerce Bank and Trust Co. v. Dworman
green
2 sentences2010Reasonable Anticipation of Litigation Although Fore met its burden on the first part of the test, to reasonably anticipate litigation, due process demands that "one must purposefully avail oneself of the privilege of conducting activities within the jurisdiction and benefit from the protection of its laws." Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142 , <j[ 16, 861 A.2d 662, 667 . 2010Reasonable Anticipation of Litigation Although Fore met its burden on the first part of the test, to reasonably anticipate litigation, due process demands that "one must purposefully avail oneself of the privilege of conducting activities within the jurisdiction and benefit from the protection of its laws." Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142 , <j[ 16, 861 A.2d 662, 667 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Adams v. Mt. Blue Health Center
green
1 sentence2004Id. ¶ 17, 735 A.2d at 483 . [¶ 14] In cases involving employees with a partial physical capacity to work, the first part of the test for determining enti tlement to total incapacity benefits is the so-called “work search rule,” the same test used in determining 100% partial incapacity. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Electronic Media International v. Pioneer Communications of America, Inc.
green
1 sentence1993Id. at 1259 . *1192 As to the first part of the test, Maine certainly has an interest in providing its citizens with a means of redress against nonresidents. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Joslin v. Rhoades
green
1 sentence1909In other words, the plaintiff invokes the rule, well established in this State and elsewhere that where by the terms of a devise or bequest an estate in fee simple of real estate or an absolute gift of personal property is made, a devise or gift over is void, as held in Joslin v. Rhoades, 150 Mass. 301 ; Jones v. Bacon, 68 Maine, 34; Mitchell v. Morse, 77 Maine, 423; and in the very recent case of Bradley v. Warren, 104 Maine, 423, where the rule and its reasons are carefully considered. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.