7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mehlhorn v. Derbygreen2 sentences2020See Mehlhorn v. Derby, 2006 ME 110, ¶ 11 , 905 A.2d 290 (“We will apply the settled appellate rule . . . that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” (quotation marks omitted)). 6 [¶9] Forino argues that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Doe’s second complaint because “two separate preliminary orders involving the same parties and the same children were issued by the Presque Isle District Court [and] [s]ubsequently, two final orders were issued as well.” A district court’s finding that a party to the second li 2020See Mehlhorn v. Derby, 2006 ME 110, ¶ 11 , 905 A.2d 290 (“We will apply the settled appellate rule . . . that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” (quotation marks omitted)). 6 [¶9] Forino argues that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Doe’s second complaint because “two separate preliminary orders involving the same parties and the same children were issued by the Presque Isle District Court [and] [s]ubsequently, two final orders were issued as well.” A district court’s finding that a party to the second li | 1 | 1 |
State of Maine v. Wai Changreen2 sentences2020See State v. Chan, 2020 ME 91, ¶ 13 , 236 A.3d 471 ; In re M.M., 2014 ME 15, ¶ 16 , 86 A.3d 622 . [¶10] The court’s finding that its two final orders adjudicated the claims of two distinct groups of plaintiffs is amply supported by the record. 2020See State v. Chan, 2020 ME 91, ¶ 13 , 236 A.3d 471 ; In re M.M., 2014 ME 15, ¶ 16 , 86 A.3d 622 . [¶10] The court’s finding that its two final orders adjudicated the claims of two distinct groups of plaintiffs is amply supported by the record. | 1 | 1 |
Camps Newfound/Owatonna Corp. v. Town of Harrisongreen2 sentences2001Id., 705 A.2d at 1114 (quotation omitted). [¶ 9] Applying the law to the facts of this case, the doctrine of claim preclusion is inapplicable here because (1) the “final judgment” prong of the claim-preclusion test is not met and (2) the events upon which the jeopardy proceeding is based are largely post-dismissal events. 2001Id., 705 A.2d at 1114 (quotation omitted). [¶ 9] Applying the law to the facts of this case, the doctrine of claim preclusion is inapplicable here because (1) the “final judgment” prong of the claim-preclusion test is not met and (2) the events upon which the jeopardy proceeding is based are largely post-dismissal events. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilmington Trust Company v. Karen Anne Sullivan-Thorne
green
2 sentences2017Co., 2013 ME 94, ¶ 6 , 81 A.3d 371—are as relevant and important in foreclosure litigation as in other areas of the law. 2017Co., 2013 ME 94, ¶ 6 , 81 A.3d 371—are as relevant and important in foreclosure litigation as in other areas of the law. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Patricia W. Deschaine
green
2 sentences2024Id. ¶¶ 35-36 (citing Deschaine, 2017 ME 190 , ¶¶ 33, 35, 37, 170 A.3d 230 ). [¶22] “Claim preclusion bars relitigation if: (1) the same parties or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and (3) the matters presented for decision in the second action were, or might have been[,] litigated in the first action.”5 Machias Sav. 2024Id. ¶¶ 35-36 (citing Deschaine, 2017 ME 190 , ¶¶ 33, 35, 37, 170 A.3d 230 ). [¶22] “Claim preclusion bars relitigation if: (1) the same parties or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and (3) the matters presented for decision in the second action were, or might have been[,] litigated in the first action.”5 Machias Sav. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Cory Thompson
green
1 sentence2024Thompson, 912 N.W.2d at 371-72 . [¶37] In Pushard, the foreclosure court decided that the lender had failed to prove that it had provided the borrowers with a notice of default that complied with section 6111 and had failed to prove that the borrowers had breached the terms of the mortgage. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. David R. Tannenbaum
green
2 sentences2024The doctrine of claim preclusion “bars the relitigation of claims if[] (1) the same parties or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and (3) the matters presented for decision in the second action were, or might have been, litigated in the first action.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tannenbaum, 2015 ME 141, ¶ 6 , 126 A.3d 734 (quotation marks omitted). [¶26] Here, there was no valid final judgment entered with respect to Beckerman’s August 2016 motion for contempt; nor was there even an adjudication on the merits of the motion. 2024The doctrine of claim preclusion “bars the relitigation of claims if[] (1) the same parties or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and (3) the matters presented for decision in the second action were, or might have been, litigated in the first action.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tannenbaum, 2015 ME 141, ¶ 6 , 126 A.3d 734 (quotation marks omitted). [¶26] Here, there was no valid final judgment entered with respect to Beckerman’s August 2016 motion for contempt; nor was there even an adjudication on the merits of the motion. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re M.M
green
2 sentences2020See State v. Chan, 2020 ME 91, ¶ 13 , 236 A.3d 471 ; In re M.M., 2014 ME 15, ¶ 16 , 86 A.3d 622 . [¶10] The court’s finding that its two final orders adjudicated the claims of two distinct groups of plaintiffs is amply supported by the record. 2020See State v. Chan, 2020 ME 91, ¶ 13 , 236 A.3d 471 ; In re M.M., 2014 ME 15, ¶ 16 , 86 A.3d 622 . [¶10] The court’s finding that its two final orders adjudicated the claims of two distinct groups of plaintiffs is amply supported by the record. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Arn H. Pearson v. Mary Lou Wendell
green
2 sentences2019(Combined Order at 11-16.) See Pearson v. Wendell, 2015 ME 136 , ~ 23, 125 A.3d 1149 . 2019(Combined Order at 11-16.) See Pearson v. Wendell, 2015 ME 136 , ~ 23, 125 A.3d 1149 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Heather C.
green
2 sentences2001With respect to the “final judgment” requirement, we have held that “[t]he preliminary protection order is intended to act as a short-term vehicle for providing safety to children in immediate risk of serious harm, not to establish the longer term goals.” In re Heather C., 2000 ME 99, ¶ 5 , 751 A.2d 448, 451 . 2001With respect to the “final judgment” requirement, we have held that “[t]he preliminary protection order is intended to act as a short-term vehicle for providing safety to children in immediate risk of serious harm, not to establish the longer term goals.” In re Heather C., 2000 ME 99, ¶ 5 , 751 A.2d 448, 451 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.