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 1908–2025 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 v. Coombsgreen2 sentences2025“Moreover, where in-custody interrogation is involved, there is no room for the contention that the privilege is waived if the individual answers some questions or gives some information on his own prior to invoking his right to remain silent when interrogated.” Id. at 475-476 ; see State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶ 15 , 704 A.2d 387 (noting that under federal law, the State must “establish[] a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence”). 2025“Moreover, where in-custody interrogation is involved, there is no room for the contention that the privilege is waived if the individual answers some questions or gives some information on his own prior to invoking his right to remain silent when interrogated.” Id. at 475-476 ; see State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶ 15 , 704 A.2d 387 (noting that under federal law, the State must “establish[] a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
Indiana Grocery Co. v. Super Valu Stores, Inc.green1 sentence2004Kan. 2003) (prohibiting the plaintiffs from invoking the state’s long-arm statute where the plaintiffs failed to provide legal support for the contention that a violation of the state’s antitrust laws constituted tortious behavior); Indiana Grocery Co. v. Super Valu Stores, Inc. 684 F. Supp. 561, 584 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1977State v. Millett, supra; State v. Smith, Me., 277 A.2d 481, 492 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen2 sentences1969He further contends that extracting the blood from him for the purpose of analysis without first allowing him to obtain counsel to advise him of his statutory right in the premises constituted a violation of his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. *60 The holdings in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761, 764 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830, 1832 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) are persuasive in our opinion that the defendant’s contention of violation of constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution is without merit. 1969He further contends that extracting the blood from him for the purpose of analysis without first allowing him to obtain counsel to advise him of his statutory right in the premises constituted a violation of his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. *60 The holdings in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761, 764 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830, 1832 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) are persuasive in our opinion that the defendant’s contention of violation of constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2025“Moreover, where in-custody interrogation is involved, there is no room for the contention that the privilege is waived if the individual answers some questions or gives some information on his own prior to invoking his right to remain silent when interrogated.” Id. at 475-476 ; see State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶ 15 , 704 A.2d 387 (noting that under federal law, the State must “establish[] a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hines
green
1 sentence1984In State v. Hines, 472 A.2d 422 (Me.1984), and State v. Plante, 417 A.2d 991 (Me.1980), this Court rejected the contention that it is error for the trial justice to expressly consider his disbelief of a defendant’s testimony as one factor, among others, in imposing an appropriate sentence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Plante
green
1 sentence1984In State v. Hines, 472 A.2d 422 (Me.1984), and State v. Plante, 417 A.2d 991 (Me.1980), this Court rejected the contention that it is error for the trial justice to expressly consider his disbelief of a defendant’s testimony as one factor, among others, in imposing an appropriate sentence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences1984Turning to the last issue raised on appeal, we find no merit in the mother’s contention that the standard of clear and convincing evidence as applied in this case 5 fails to satisfy the requirements of due process under the federal constitution as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). 1984Turning to the last issue raised on appeal, we find no merit in the mother’s contention that the standard of clear and convincing evidence as applied in this case 5 fails to satisfy the requirements of due process under the federal constitution as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Millett
green
1 sentence1977State v. Millett, supra; State v. Smith, Me., 277 A.2d 481, 492 (1971). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Johnson v. Louisiana
red
2 sentences1974Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972). 1974Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
McKown v. Powers
green
2 sentences1970McKown v. Powers, 86 Me. 291, 293 , 29 A. 1079 , and State v. Carleton, 148 Me. 237, 239 , 92 A.2d 327 . 1970McKown v. Powers, 86 Me. 291, 293 , 29 A. 1079 , and State v. Carleton, 148 Me. 237, 239 , 92 A.2d 327 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Carleton
green
2 sentences1970McKown v. Powers, 86 Me. 291, 293 , 29 A. 1079 , and State v. Carleton, 148 Me. 237, 239 , 92 A.2d 327 . 1970McKown v. Powers, 86 Me. 291, 293 , 29 A. 1079 , and State v. Carleton, 148 Me. 237, 239 , 92 A.2d 327 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co.
green
2 sentences1908Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Co., 124 N. C. 328 , ( 32 S. E. 720 ), and Mugge v. Tampa Water Works Co., 42 South, 81 , (Fla.) follow the. 1908Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Co., 124 N. C. 328 , ( 32 S. E. 720 ), and Mugge v. Tampa Water Works Co., 42 South, 81 , (Fla.) follow the. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.