7 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
David A. Jones v. Secretary of Stategreen2 sentences2020See Jones v. Sec’y of State, 2020 ME 117, ¶ 4 , --- A.3d --- (“there is a strong public interest in not changing the rules for voting at this late time”) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-6 (2006)). 2020See Jones v. Sec’y of State, 2020 ME 117, ¶ 4 , --- A.3d --- (“there is a strong public interest in not changing the rules for voting 6 at this late time”) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-6 (2006)). | 2 | 2 |
Purcell v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2020See Jones v. Sec’y of State, 2020 ME 117, ¶ 4 , --- A.3d --- (“there is a strong public interest in not changing the rules for voting at this late time”) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-6 (2006)). 2020See Jones v. Sec’y of State, 2020 ME 117, ¶ 4 , --- A.3d --- (“there is a strong public interest in not changing the rules for voting 6 at this late time”) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-6 (2006)). | 2 | 2 |
Letellier v. Smallgreen1 sentence2016A failure to investigate—in the absence of knowledge or obvious falsity—is justified “not only when an investigation would involve an expenditure of effort and money out of proportion to the magnitude of the transaction, but also when it could be made without any considerable trouble or expense.” Letellier v. Small, 400 A.2d 371, 375 (1979) (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of McCormickgreen2 sentences2009See Burton, 392 A.2d at 59 (holding grant of new trial erroneous, in part, because the attempt to obtain a complete copy of the applicable code provisions in advance of trial informally, without using discovery procedures, did not meet the due diligence standard); see also Estate of McCormick, 2001 ME 24, ¶ 39 , 765 A.2d 552, 565 (finding no due diligence when moving party could have elicited testimony through discovery procedures, but did not). 2009See Burton, 392 A.2d at 59 (holding grant of new trial erroneous, in part, because the attempt to obtain a complete copy of the applicable code provisions in advance of trial informally, without using discovery procedures, did not meet the due diligence standard); see also Estate of McCormick, 2001 ME 24, ¶ 39 , 765 A.2d 552, 565 (finding no due diligence when moving party could have elicited testimony through discovery procedures, but did not). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Eliot v. Burtongreen2 sentences2009See Burton, 392 A.2d at 59 . 2009See Burton, 392 A.2d at 59 (holding grant of new trial erroneous, in part, because the attempt to obtain a complete copy of the applicable code provisions in advance of trial informally, without using discovery procedures, did not meet the due diligence standard); see also Estate of McCormick, 2001 ME 24, ¶ 39 , 765 A.2d 552, 565 (finding no due diligence when moving party could have elicited testimony through discovery procedures, but did not). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crafts v. Quinn
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 828 . [¶8] This due diligence requirement resonates particularly strongly in the context of a challenge to existing election laws raised shortly before an election is scheduled to take place. 2020Id. at 828 . [¶8] This due diligence requirement resonates particularly strongly in the context of a challenge to existing election laws raised shortly before an election is scheduled to take place. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Foy
green
2 sentences2018P. 16(a), neither the amended Rule nor our cases impose any requirement that the State interview its witnesses at any particular time in order to search for information the State does not know exists and that is not within its control. 6 See Robbins , 1997 ME 21 , ¶¶ 4-7, 689 A.2d 603 (rejecting an argument "to create a due diligence standard for the State's investigation" regarding potential witnesses when "neither the State nor the investigating officer had been aware of" two potential witnesses until the trial began); Foy , 662 A.2d at 242 . 2018P. 16(a), neither the amended Rule nor our cases impose any requirement that the State interview its witnesses at any particular time in order to search for information the State does not know exists and that is not within its control.6 See Robbins, 1997 ME 21, ¶¶ 4-7 , 689 A.2d 603 (rejecting an argument “to create a due diligence standard for the State’s investigation” regarding potential witnesses when “neither the State nor the investigating officer had been aware of” two potential witnesses until the trial began); Foy, 662 A.2d at 242 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Robbins
neutral
2 sentences2018P. 16(a), neither the amended Rule nor our cases impose any requirement that the State interview its witnesses at any particular time in order to search for information the State does not know exists and that is not within its control. 6 See Robbins , 1997 ME 21 , ¶¶ 4-7, 689 A.2d 603 (rejecting an argument "to create a due diligence standard for the State's investigation" regarding potential witnesses when "neither the State nor the investigating officer had been aware of" two potential witnesses until the trial began); Foy , 662 A.2d at 242 . 2018P. 16(a), neither the amended Rule nor our cases impose any requirement that the State interview its witnesses at any particular time in order to search for information the State does not know exists and that is not within its control. 6 See Robbins , 1997 ME 21 , ¶¶ 4-7, 689 A.2d 603 (rejecting an argument "to create a due diligence standard for the State's investigation" regarding potential witnesses when "neither the State nor the investigating officer had been aware of" two potential witnesses until the trial began); Foy , 662 A.2d at 242 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Francis v. Stinson
green
2 sentences2016In this case, DBRS asks us to abandon the requirement of due diligence imposed on a plaintiff who wishes to reap the benefits of section 859, characterizing the due diligence requirement as a “vestige of contributory negligence” that conflicts with a plaintiffs burden of proving the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim in a manner that is both “illogical and inequitable.” We reject DBRS’s assertion that the due diligence burden is either illogical or inequitable, and we decline its invitation to overrule our longstanding precedents. [¶ 20] To • establish the justifiable reliance eleme 2016In this case, DBRS asks us to abandon the requirement of due diligence imposed on a plaintiff who wishes to reap the benefits of section 859, characterizing the due diligence requirement as a “vestige of contributory negligence” that conflicts with a plaintiffs burden of proving the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim in a manner that is both “illogical and inequitable.” We reject DBRS’s assertion that the due diligence burden is either illogical or inequitable, and we decline its invitation to overrule our longstanding precedents. [¶ 20] To • establish the justifiable reliance eleme | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Preston v. Tracy
green
1 sentence2009Id. [¶ 15] We agree with Fogarty that the due diligence standard is a “stringent” one. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Thurlow
green
1 sentence1997Citing State v. Thurlow, 414 A.2d 1241 (Me.1980) and State v. Ledger, 444 A.2d 404 (Me.1982), Robbins argues that the State had “a continuing duty to make a diligent inquiry as to the existence of relevant information and witnesses.” Robbins accuses the State of remaining “willfully ignorant of the evidence.” [¶ 7] Contrary to the contention of Robbins, we have never stated that M.R.Crim.P. 16 imposes a duty of due diligence in the conduct of police investigations. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Ledger
green
1 sentence1997Citing State v. Thurlow, 414 A.2d 1241 (Me.1980) and State v. Ledger, 444 A.2d 404 (Me.1982), Robbins argues that the State had “a continuing duty to make a diligent inquiry as to the existence of relevant information and witnesses.” Robbins accuses the State of remaining “willfully ignorant of the evidence.” [¶ 7] Contrary to the contention of Robbins, we have never stated that M.R.Crim.P. 16 imposes a duty of due diligence in the conduct of police investigations. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.