de novo hearing in Maine

2012Discussion Title 36 M.R.S. § 151 (2010), 2 which governs the Court's review of Respondent's decisions, provides that the Court "shall conduct a de novo hearing, and make a de novo determination of the merits of the case." Accord Foster v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 205 ," 7, 716 A.2d 1012 .

2012Discussion Title 36 M.R.S. § 151 (2010), 2 which governs the Court's review of Respondent's decisions, provides that the Court "shall conduct a de novo hearing, and make a de novo determination of the merits of the case." Accord Foster v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 205 ," 7, 716 A.2d 1012 .

2015Isis Dev., LLC v. Town of Wells, 2003 ME 149 , ,-r 3, 836 A.2d 1285 .

2015Isis Dev., LLC v. Town of Wells, 2003 ME 149 , ,-r 3, 836 A.2d 1285 .

2008The operative decision is the decision of the "tribunal of original jurisdiction" that acts "as both a fact finder and a decision maker." Peregrine Developers, LLC v. Town of Orono, 2004 ME 95 , <[ 9, 854 A.2d 216, 219 . 3 "\!\Then a board of appeals acts as a tribunal of original jurisidicion and properly conducts a de novo hearing pursuant to 30-A lVl.R.S.A. § 2691 and the municipality's ordinance, we review the decision of the board of appeals directly." Griffen v. Town of Dedham, 2002 ME 105 , <[ 6, 799 A.2d 1239, 1241-42 .

2008The operative decision is the decision of the "tribunal of original jurisdiction" that acts "as both a fact finder and a decision maker." Peregrine Developers, LLC v. Town of Orono, 2004 ME 95 , <[ 9, 854 A.2d 216, 219 . 3 "\!\Then a board of appeals acts as a tribunal of original jurisidicion and properly conducts a de novo hearing pursuant to 30-A lVl.R.S.A. § 2691 and the municipality's ordinance, we review the decision of the board of appeals directly." Griffen v. Town of Dedham, 2002 ME 105 , <[ 6, 799 A.2d 1239, 1241-42 .

2025A petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence at a de novo hearing before a single justice that he has met each of the criteria. 10 See In re Prolman, 2022 ME 25, ¶ 8 , 273 A.3d 352 ; M.

2025A petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence at a de novo hearing before a single justice that he has met each of the criteria. 10 See In re Prolman, 2022 ME 25, ¶ 8 , 273 A.3d 352 ; M.

2024P. 25(a); State v. Ruybal, 3Because we agree with Weidul’s contention, we do not consider Weidul’s additional argument that the record did not support the post-conviction court’s findings and conclusions. 11 408 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Me. 1979), we apply a de novo standard of review when interpreting the rule’s language to determine the meaning of the rule and whether it must be applied, State v. Johnson, 2006 ME 35, ¶ 9 , 894 A.2d 489 .

2024P. 25(a); State v. Ruybal, 3Because we agree with Weidul’s contention, we do not consider Weidul’s additional argument that the record did not support the post-conviction court’s findings and conclusions. 11 408 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Me. 1979), we apply a de novo standard of review when interpreting the rule’s language to determine the meaning of the rule and whether it must be applied, State v. Johnson, 2006 ME 35, ¶ 9 , 894 A.2d 489 .

2024See Fortune v. State, 2017 ME 61, ¶ 13 , 158 A.3d 512 (stating, in a post-conviction case, “We recognize that such a ‘mix’ of legal and factual questions can be difficult to tease apart.”); State v. Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ¶ 33 , 151 A.3d 911 (stating that our adoption of a bifurcated standard in cases involving the voluntariness of confessions left unresolved “the contours of the analysis” because of “confusion about the precise location of the line between the facts to be determined—exclusively the task of the trial court—and the legal question of the ultimate determination regarding 11 A bifurca

2024See Fortune v. State, 2017 ME 61, ¶ 13 , 158 A.3d 512 (stating, in a post-conviction case, “We recognize that such a ‘mix’ of legal and factual questions can be difficult to tease apart.”); State v. Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ¶ 33 , 151 A.3d 911 (stating that our adoption of a bifurcated standard in cases involving the voluntariness of confessions left unresolved “the contours of the analysis” because of “confusion about the precise location of the line between the facts to be determined—exclusively the task of the trial court—and the legal question of the ultimate determination regarding 11 A bifurca

2023See Caron v. City of Auburn, 567 A.2d 66, 68 (Me. 1989) (“Though the trial court was correct in its determination that SSA was a necessary party to the action, its dismissal on that basis contravenes the purpose of Rule 19(a).”); Larrabee v. Town of Knox, 2000 ME 15, ¶¶ 1, 11 , 5 KeyBank’s position at oral argument aligned with most of the briefs submitted by the amici curiae. 6 744 A.2d 544 (“The court erred by dismissing the inverse condemnation claim based on the failure of Geneva to join necessary parties, therefore we must vacate the dismissal.”). [¶12] “In Maine, foreclosure is a creatur

2023See Caron v. City of Auburn, 567 A.2d 66, 68 (Me. 1989) (“Though the trial court was correct in its determination that SSA was a necessary party to the action, its dismissal on that basis contravenes the purpose of Rule 19(a).”); Larrabee v. Town of Knox, 2000 ME 15, ¶¶ 1, 11 , 5 KeyBank’s position at oral argument aligned with most of the briefs submitted by the amici curiae. 6 744 A.2d 544 (“The court erred by dismissing the inverse condemnation claim based on the failure of Geneva to join necessary parties, therefore we must vacate the dismissal.”). [¶12] “In Maine, foreclosure is a creatur

2022Hill v. Town of Wells, That decision occurred after Zappia’s first appeal, in which the Superior Court (O’Neil, J.) 1 remanded the matter to the Board for a de novo hearing in compliance with 30-A M.R.S. § 2691(3) (2021), but those proceedings are not germane to Zappia’s appeal here. 4 2021 ME 38, ¶ 8 , 254 A.3d 1161 .

2022Hill v. Town of Wells, That decision occurred after Zappia’s first appeal, in which the Superior Court (O’Neil, J.) 1 remanded the matter to the Board for a de novo hearing in compliance with 30-A M.R.S. § 2691(3) (2021), but those proceedings are not germane to Zappia’s appeal here. 4 2021 ME 38, ¶ 8 , 254 A.3d 1161 .

2018"Because the Superior Court is not acting in an appellate capacity, we review its determinations directly." Linnehan Leasing v. State Tax Assessor , 2006 ME 33 , ¶ 16, 898 A.2d 408 . [¶ 11] The Goggins contend that the court erred in rejecting their argument that the business taxes imposed on the LLC are functionally income taxes on the individual holders because of the "flow-through" nature of income realized by an LLC.

2018"Because the Superior Court is not acting in an appellate capacity, we review its determinations directly." Linnehan Leasing v. State Tax Assessor , 2006 ME 33 , ¶ 16, 898 A.2d 408 . [¶ 11] The Goggins contend that the court erred in rejecting their argument that the business taxes imposed on the LLC are functionally income taxes on the individual holders because of the "flow-through" nature of income realized by an LLC.

2015DISCUSSION [¶6] In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must timely present that issue to the original tribunal; otherwise, the issue is deemed waived. 2 In their appeals application the Browns listed nineteen issues for the SBA’s consideration on appeal, none of which urged the SBA to conduct a de novo hearing. 4 See Ford Motor Co. v. Darling’s, 2014 ME 7, ¶ 41 , 86 A.3d 35 .

2015DISCUSSION [¶6] In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must timely present that issue to the original tribunal; otherwise, the issue is deemed waived. 2 In their appeals application the Browns listed nineteen issues for the SBA’s consideration on appeal, none of which urged the SBA to conduct a de novo hearing. 4 See Ford Motor Co. v. Darling’s, 2014 ME 7, ¶ 41 , 86 A.3d 35 .

2014Desert, 2009 ME 66, ¶ 15 , 974 A.2d 903 ; Sanborn v. Town of Sebago, 2007 ME 60, ¶¶6-11 , 924 A.2d 1061 ; Thomas v. City of S. Portland, 2001 ME 50, ¶ 2 , 768 A.2d 595 . • Occasionally, a municipal decision-maker is characterized as acting on appeal but conducts a de novo hearing and becomes the fact-finding entity whose decision is reviewed on appeal.

2014Desert, 2009 ME 66, ¶ 15 , 974 A.2d 903 ; Sanborn v. Town of Sebago, 2007 ME 60, ¶¶6-11 , 924 A.2d 1061 ; Thomas v. City of S. Portland, 2001 ME 50, ¶ 2 , 768 A.2d 595 . • Occasionally, a municipal decision-maker is characterized as acting on appeal but conducts a de novo hearing and becomes the fact-finding entity whose decision is reviewed on appeal.

2014See Peregrine Developers, LLC v. Town of Orono, 2004 ME 95, ¶ 9 , 854 A.2d 216 ; Griffin v. Town of Dedham, 2002 ME 105, ¶6 , 799 A.2d 1239 , abrogated on other grounds by, Isis Dev., LLC v. Town of Wells, 2003 ME 149, ¶ 3 , 836 A.2d 1285 . • Sometimes, a board of appeals acts only in an appellate’capacity and cannot decide de novo an issue brought to a planning board, see Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ¶¶5-18 , 868 A.2d 161 , or a code enforcement officer, see Mills v. Town of Eliot, 2008 ME 134, ¶¶ 13-16 , 955 A.2d 258 . • Sometimes, a board of appeals must decide a matter de

2014See Peregrine Developers, LLC v. Town of Orono, 2004 ME 95, ¶ 9 , 854 A.2d 216 ; Griffin v. Town of Dedham, 2002 ME 105, ¶6 , 799 A.2d 1239 , abrogated on other grounds by, Isis Dev., LLC v. Town of Wells, 2003 ME 149, ¶ 3 , 836 A.2d 1285 . • Sometimes, a board of appeals acts only in an appellate’capacity and cannot decide de novo an issue brought to a planning board, see Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ¶¶5-18 , 868 A.2d 161 , or a code enforcement officer, see Mills v. Town of Eliot, 2008 ME 134, ¶¶ 13-16 , 955 A.2d 258 . • Sometimes, a board of appeals must decide a matter de

2014Desert, 2009 ME 66, ¶ 15 , 974 A.2d 903 ; Sanborn v. Town of Sebago, 2007 ME 60, ¶¶6-11 , 924 A.2d 1061 ; Thomas v. City of S. Portland, 2001 ME 50, ¶ 2 , 768 A.2d 595 . • Occasionally, a municipal decision-maker is characterized as acting on appeal but conducts a de novo hearing and becomes the fact-finding entity whose decision is reviewed on appeal.

2014Desert, 2009 ME 66, ¶ 15 , 974 A.2d 903 ; Sanborn v. Town of Sebago, 2007 ME 60, ¶¶6-11 , 924 A.2d 1061 ; Thomas v. City of S. Portland, 2001 ME 50, ¶ 2 , 768 A.2d 595 . • Occasionally, a municipal decision-maker is characterized as acting on appeal but conducts a de novo hearing and becomes the fact-finding entity whose decision is reviewed on appeal.