8 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Greater Portland Transit Districtgreen2 sentences2017"Waivers [of immunity] are not generally implied and even explicit waivers are construed narrowly." Id. (citing roung v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417, 418-19 (Me. 1987) (finding that language in a municipal transit district's charter permitting it to "sue or be sued" was not an explicit waiver of governmental immunity divesting the district of the protections of the Maine Tort Claims Act)). 2009See Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417, 418-19 (Me.1987) (finding that language in a municipal transit district’s charter permitting it to “sue or be sued” was not an explicit waiver of governmental immunity divesting the district of the protections of the MTCA). [¶ 13] The rule that waivers of immunity must be explicit is not without exception. | 2 | 2 |
Florida v. Powellgreen1 sentence2025Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-79 (1966); Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 59-60 (2010); see State v. Figueroa, 2016 ME 133, ¶¶ 13-14 , 146 A.3d 427 . | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025With respect to the majority’s position that requiring an explicit waiver or invocation would impose a burden on effective law enforcement, Justice Sotomayor responded that “our system of justice is not founded on a fear that a suspect will exercise his rights.” Id. at 410 32 (quotation marks omitted); see also Davis, 512 U.S. at 474 (Souter, J., concurring). ii. | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen1 sentence2025Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-79 (1966); Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 59-60 (2010); see State v. Figueroa, 2016 ME 133, ¶¶ 13-14 , 146 A.3d 427 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Maine v. Michael D. Figueroagreen1 sentence2025Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-79 (1966); Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 59-60 (2010); see State v. Figueroa, 2016 ME 133, ¶¶ 13-14 , 146 A.3d 427 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Figueroagreen1 sentence2025Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-79 (1966); Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 59-60 (2010); see State v. Figueroa, 2016 ME 133, ¶¶ 13-14 , 146 A.3d 427 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Courtney Dave Pennycooke Courtney Pennycookegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., United States v. Pennycooke, 65 F.3d 9, 11 (3d Cir.1995); Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d at 30; State v. Antoine, 564 N.W.2d 637, 639 (N.D.1997); Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98 , 843 P.2d 682, 688 (1992); Savage, 577 A.2d at 473 (holding that when a defendant is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required to inform the defendant of the right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right); Waters, 506 N.E.2d at 865 . [¶ 18] In Siciliano v. Vose, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed a criminal defendant’s contention that he did not wai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Antoinegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., United States v. Pennycooke, 65 F.3d 9, 11 (3d Cir.1995); Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d at 30; State v. Antoine, 564 N.W.2d 637, 639 (N.D.1997); Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98 , 843 P.2d 682, 688 (1992); Savage, 577 A.2d at 473 (holding that when a defendant is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required to inform the defendant of the right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right); Waters, 506 N.E.2d at 865 . [¶ 18] In Siciliano v. Vose, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed a criminal defendant’s contention that he did not wai | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., United States v. Pennycooke, 65 F.3d 9, 11 (3d Cir.1995); Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d at 30; State v. Antoine, 564 N.W.2d 637, 639 (N.D.1997); Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98 , 843 P.2d 682, 688 (1992); Savage, 577 A.2d at 473 (holding that when a defendant is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required to inform the defendant of the right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right); Waters, 506 N.E.2d at 865 . [¶ 18] In Siciliano v. Vose, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed a criminal defendant’s contention that he did not wai 2006See, e.g., United States v. Pennycooke, 65 F.3d 9, 11 (3d Cir.1995); Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d at 30; State v. Antoine, 564 N.W.2d 637, 639 (N.D.1997); Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98 , 843 P.2d 682, 688 (1992); Savage, 577 A.2d at 473 (holding that when a defendant is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required to inform the defendant of the right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right); Waters, 506 N.E.2d at 865 . [¶ 18] In Siciliano v. Vose, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed a criminal defendant’s contention that he did not wai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Savagegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., United States v. Pennycooke, 65 F.3d 9, 11 (3d Cir.1995); Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d at 30; State v. Antoine, 564 N.W.2d 637, 639 (N.D.1997); Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98 , 843 P.2d 682, 688 (1992); Savage, 577 A.2d at 473 (holding that when a defendant is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required to inform the defendant of the right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right); Waters, 506 N.E.2d at 865 . [¶ 18] In Siciliano v. Vose, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed a criminal defendant’s contention that he did not wai | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cyrgreen1 sentence2004P. 11(a) Advisory Committee’s Note to 1987 amendment. [¶ 9] The 1987 advisory committee notes indicate that the explicit requirement of a “written certification of record adequacy and issue substantiality” was added to the rules after our opinion in State v. Cyr, 501 A.2d 1303, 1305 (Me.1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Doughtygreen1 sentence1990See State v. Doughty, 554 A. 2d 1189, 1191 (Me.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berghuis v. Thompkins
green
1 sentence2025With respect to the majority’s position that requiring an explicit waiver or invocation would impose a burden on effective law enforcement, Justice Sotomayor responded that “our system of justice is not founded on a fear that a suspect will exercise his rights.” Id. at 410 32 (quotation marks omitted); see also Davis, 512 U.S. at 474 (Souter, J., concurring). ii. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Clarke
green
1 sentence2025We agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that an “ambiguous invocation . . . should not be treated as if the suspect had said nothing at all.” Clarke, 960 N.E.2d at 320 . [¶61] In sum, requiring an explicit waiver and that an interrogator stop to clarify when a suspect in custody ambiguously invokes a constitutional right aligns more with our precedent and the importance we give to the privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Purcell
green
1 sentence2025As supported by sociological considerations, we decline to endorse a rule that “could disadvantage the most vulnerable of our citizens.” Purcell, 203 A.3d at 544 . [¶62] We hold that someone in custody must actually waive the privilege against self-incrimination in order for an interrogation to occur or continue.13 13 This holding is consistent with our older, pre-Thompkins cases interpreting federal law. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Coombs
green
1 sentence2019"The State bears the burden of establishing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108 , ~21, 830 A.2d 433 quoting State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1 , ~ 15, 704 A.2d 392 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Lockhart
green
2 sentences2019"The State bears the burden of establishing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108 , ~21, 830 A.2d 433 quoting State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1 , ~ 15, 704 A.2d 392 . 2019"The State bears the burden of establishing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108 , ~21, 830 A.2d 433 quoting State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1 , ~ 15, 704 A.2d 392 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bahre v. Liberty Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012It may be that the drafter confused the requirement of Rule 56(e) with the requirement of Rule 4A(i) regarding affidavits regarding attachment and attachment upon trustee process. 3 In any event, the question becomes whether the defect in the Plaintiffs opposing affidavit requires that the affidavit be entirely disregarded, or whether the court can consider those portions ofit that the affidavit clearly and affirmatively shows were made on the basis ofpersonal knowledge, and disregard the rest.2 Defendant cites Bahre v. Liberty Group, ~WOO ME 75, 750 A.2d 558 , for the proposition that a defec | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commonwealth v. Waters
green
1 sentence2006See, e.g., United States v. Pennycooke, 65 F.3d 9, 11 (3d Cir.1995); Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d at 30; State v. Antoine, 564 N.W.2d 637, 639 (N.D.1997); Taylor v. State, 252 Kan. 98 , 843 P.2d 682, 688 (1992); Savage, 577 A.2d at 473 (holding that when a defendant is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required to inform the defendant of the right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right); Waters, 506 N.E.2d at 865 . [¶ 18] In Siciliano v. Vose, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed a criminal defendant’s contention that he did not wai | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.