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.
9 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences1976We said in Green v. State, Me., 247 A.2d 117, 120 (1968): “The constitutional due process clause does not freeze the sentencing procedure in the mold of trial procedure, and a sentencing judge may exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within the limits fixed by law.” We have no doubt that the Justice’s observation of the conduct of the defendant during the trial may be utilized by him in understanding the defendant’s personal susceptibilities to criminal conduct and in determining the pu 1970So the Court is taking cognizance of what was developed at those 3 trials as far as facts are concerned.” We said in Green v. State, 1968, Me., 247 A.2d 117 ; “The constitutional due process clause does not freeze the sentencing procedure in the mold of trial procedure, and a sentencing judge may exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within the limits fixed by law.” But we further cautioned that “a sentence substantially predicated upon assumptions concerning past criminal activity untru | 1 | 2 |
Hill v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429 ,. 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); accord McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 , 218 & n. 22, 91 S.Ct. 1454 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Crompton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 941 , 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). 2015See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429 ,. 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); accord McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 , 218 & n. 22, 91 S.Ct. 1454 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Crompton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 941 , 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
McGautha v. Californiagreen2 sentences2015See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429 ,. 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); accord McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 , 218 & n. 22, 91 S.Ct. 1454 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Crompton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 941 , 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). 2015See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429 ,. 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); accord McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 , 218 & n. 22, 91 S.Ct. 1454 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Crompton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 941 , 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2015Schoff has not shown an "atypical or significant hardship." See Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Corrections, 910 F. Supp. 986, 1003 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Tilford v. Pagegreen1 sentence2015See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429 ,. 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); accord McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 , 218 & n. 22, 91 S.Ct. 1454 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Crompton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 941 , 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Pitts v. Wainwrightgreen1 sentence2015See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429 ,. 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); accord McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 , 218 & n. 22, 91 S.Ct. 1454 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Crompton v. Ohio, 408 U.S. 941 , 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2006The statutory provision charging the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the registrant or the bureau itself with verifying the registrant's appearance if there is reason to believe his or her appearance has changed thus meets the constitutional due process requirement of '"fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable.'" State v. Weeks, 2000 ME 171 , ,7, 761 A.2d 44,46 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 137 F.3d 652, 653 (1st Cir. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weeksgreen2 sentences2006The statutory provision charging the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the registrant or the bureau itself with verifying the registrant's appearance if there is reason to believe his or her appearance has changed thus meets the constitutional due process requirement of '"fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable.'" State v. Weeks, 2000 ME 171 , ,7, 761 A.2d 44,46 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 137 F.3d 652, 653 (1st Cir. 1998)). 2006The statutory provision charging the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the registrant or the bureau itself with verifying the registrant's appearance if there is reason to believe his or her appearance has changed thus meets the constitutional due process requirement of '"fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable.'" State v. Weeks, 2000 ME 171 , ,7, 761 A.2d 44,46 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 137 F.3d 652, 653 (1st Cir. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thorntongreen2 sentences2001See State v. Thornton, 485 A.2d 952, 952-53 (Me.1984); see also Younie v. State, 281 A.2d 446, 448-49 (Me.1971) (declining to review the petitioner's constitutional due process claim, "because it is raised for the first time in his brief to this Court upon appeal"). 2001See State v. Thornton, 485 A.2d 952, 952-53 (Me.1984); see also Younie v. State, 281 A.2d 446, 448-49 (Me.1971) (declining to review the petitioner’s constitutional due process claim, “because it is raised for the first time in his brief to this Court upon appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
Younie v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See State v. Thornton, 485 A.2d 952, 952-53 (Me.1984); see also Younie v. State, 281 A.2d 446, 448-49 (Me.1971) (declining to review the petitioner's constitutional due process claim, "because it is raised for the first time in his brief to this Court upon appeal"). 2001See State v. Thornton, 485 A.2d 952, 952-53 (Me.1984); see also Younie v. State, 281 A.2d 446, 448-49 (Me.1971) (declining to review the petitioner’s constitutional due process claim, “because it is raised for the first time in his brief to this Court upon appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. Haasgreen2 sentences2000See Webb v. Haas, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 5 , 728 A.2d 1261, 1264 (“The death knell exception permits an appeal from an interlocutory order where substantial rights of a party will be irreparably lost if review is delayed until final judgment.”). [¶ 6] Due process is a flexible concept calling for “such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). 2000See Webb v. Haas, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 5 , 728 A.2d 1261, 1264 (“The death knell exception permits an appeal from an interlocutory order where substantial rights of a party will be irreparably lost if review is delayed until final judgment.”). [¶ 6] Due process is a flexible concept calling for “such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2000See Webb v. Haas, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 5 , 728 A.2d 1261, 1264 (“The death knell exception permits an appeal from an interlocutory order where substantial rights of a party will be irreparably lost if review is delayed until final judgment.”). [¶ 6] Due process is a flexible concept calling for “such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). 2000See Webb v. Haas, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 5 , 728 A.2d 1261, 1264 (“The death knell exception permits an appeal from an interlocutory order where substantial rights of a party will be irreparably lost if review is delayed until final judgment.”). [¶ 6] Due process is a flexible concept calling for “such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1970So the Court is taking cognizance of what was developed at those 3 trials as far as facts are concerned.” We said in Green v. State, 1968, Me., 247 A.2d 117 ; “The constitutional due process clause does not freeze the sentencing procedure in the mold of trial procedure, and a sentencing judge may exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within the limits fixed by law.” But we further cautioned that “a sentence substantially predicated upon assumptions concerning past criminal activity untru 1970So the Court is taking cognizance of what was developed at those 3 trials as far as facts are concerned.” We said in Green v. State, 1968, Me., 247 A.2d 117 ; “The constitutional due process clause does not freeze the sentencing procedure in the mold of trial procedure, and a sentencing judge may exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within the limits fixed by law.” But we further cautioned that “a sentence substantially predicated upon assumptions concerning past criminal activity untru | 2 | 1968–1970 |
James Chongris and George Chongris v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Andover
green
1 sentence2009In Chongris v. Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Andover, 811 F.2d 36 (lst Cir. 1987), the First Circuit considered whether a prospective donut shop owner had a property interest in a victualers license sufficient to challenge the denial of the license on a constitutional due process claim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Friedman v. United States
green
1 sentence1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Driver v. State
green
2 sentences1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . 1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Application of Raymond C. Hodge for Certificate of Probable Cause
green
1 sentence1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Harold George Hoover v. United States
green
1 sentence1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
David B. Powers v. United States
green
1 sentence1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
United States ex rel. Rooney v. Ragen
green
1 sentence1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Momand v. Universal Film Exchanges, Inc.
green
1 sentence1968Williams v. People of State of New York, 1949, 337 U.S. 961 , 69 S.Ct. 1529 , 93 L.Ed. 1760 ; Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 1959, 358 U.S. 576 , 79 S.Ct. 421 , 3 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Friedman v. United States, 1953, U.S.C.A., 8th Cir., 200 F.2d 690 ; Driver v. State, 1952, 201 Md. 25 , 92 A.2d 570 ; Application of Hodge, 1958, U.S.C.A., 9th Cir., 262 F.2d 778 ; Hoover v. United States, 1959, U.S.C.A., 10th Cir., 268 F.2d 787 ; Powers v. United States, 1963, U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., 325 F.2d 666 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.