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 1 courts 1972–1987 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 |
|---|---|---|
Procise v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurancegreen2 sentences1987Procise v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 494 A.2d 1375, 1380 (Me.1985). 1987Procise v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 494 A.2d 1375, 1380 (Me.1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langleygreen1 sentence1985In any event, even if we assume that the presiding justice committed error by not on his own initiative barring cross-examination about defendant’s prearrest silence, defendant does not persuade us that “the error complained of is so highly prejudicial and so taints the proceeding as virtually to deprive the aggrieved party of a fair trial.” State v. Langley, 242 A.2d 688, 690 (Me.1968). | 1 | 1 |
Camplin v. Town of Yorkgreen1 sentence1985M.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Camplin v. Town of York, 471 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Me.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Dube v. McIvergreen1 sentence1984Any such error, allegedly affecting only the size of the award, is deemed harmless “unless the party claiming to be prejudiced by the error shows that ... even if the error had not occurred, the amount of damages the jury awarded was not rationally supportable on the evidence and must be held excessive.” Dube v. McIver, 431 A.2d 630, 632-33 (Me.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melvingreen1 sentence1979See State v. Melvin, Me., 341 A.2d 376, 378 (1975); Glassman, Maine Practice § 30.2 (1967). | 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. Jackson
green
1 sentence1987For reasons stated in Jackson, 525 A.2d at 218 , we conclude that the presiding justice committed no error in permitting the DHS workers to explain their understanding of the applicable regulations and statutes. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Elms v. Crane
green
2 sentences1981Defendants have also contended that the presiding justice committed error in refusing to instruct, as requested, on the privileges of a person living in a community (1) to make statements to a police officer (Chief Segal) for the purpose of protecting one’s property, see, e. g., Parker v. Kirkpatrick, 124 Me. 181 , 126 A. 825 (1924), and (2) to communicate to a police officer for the purpose of aiding in the detection of crime, see, e. g., Elms v. Crane, 118 Me. 261 , 107 A. 852 (1919). 1981Defendants have also contended that the presiding justice committed error in refusing to instruct, as requested, on the privileges of a person living in a community (1) to make statements to a police officer (Chief Segal) for the purpose of protecting one’s property, see, e. g., Parker v. Kirkpatrick, 124 Me. 181 , 126 A. 825 (1924), and (2) to communicate to a police officer for the purpose of aiding in the detection of crime, see, e. g., Elms v. Crane, 118 Me. 261 , 107 A. 852 (1919). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Parker v. Kirkpatrick
green
2 sentences1981Defendants have also contended that the presiding justice committed error in refusing to instruct, as requested, on the privileges of a person living in a community (1) to make statements to a police officer (Chief Segal) for the purpose of protecting one’s property, see, e. g., Parker v. Kirkpatrick, 124 Me. 181 , 126 A. 825 (1924), and (2) to communicate to a police officer for the purpose of aiding in the detection of crime, see, e. g., Elms v. Crane, 118 Me. 261 , 107 A. 852 (1919). 1981Defendants have also contended that the presiding justice committed error in refusing to instruct, as requested, on the privileges of a person living in a community (1) to make statements to a police officer (Chief Segal) for the purpose of protecting one’s property, see, e. g., Parker v. Kirkpatrick, 124 Me. 181 , 126 A. 825 (1924), and (2) to communicate to a police officer for the purpose of aiding in the detection of crime, see, e. g., Elms v. Crane, 118 Me. 261 , 107 A. 852 (1919). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Burnham
green
1 sentence1977We note, to pass beyond, a procedural argument of the State: — that by resort to motions for discovery pursuant to Rule 16(a) M.R.Crim.P., defendants were not entitled to obtain access to an impounded transcript not “within the possession, custody, or control of the State.” State v. Burnham, Me., 350 A.2d 577 (1976); State v. Emery, Me., 304 A.2d 908 (1973). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Emery
green
1 sentence1977We note, to pass beyond, a procedural argument of the State: — that by resort to motions for discovery pursuant to Rule 16(a) M.R.Crim.P., defendants were not entitled to obtain access to an impounded transcript not “within the possession, custody, or control of the State.” State v. Burnham, Me., 350 A.2d 577 (1976); State v. Emery, Me., 304 A.2d 908 (1973). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1972It is undisputed that the confession had been given after the defendant (1) had in fact been told by the Maine State police of his constitutional rights as prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and (2) to all reasonable external appearances had plainly and explicitly waived those rights. 1972It is undisputed that the confession had been given after the defendant (1) had in fact been told by the Maine State police of his constitutional rights as prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and (2) to all reasonable external appearances had plainly and explicitly waived those rights. | 1 | 1972–1972 |