7 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Mathew H.green2 sentences2018See In re Matthew H., 2017 ME 151 , ¶ 2, 167 A.3d 561 . [¶3] The court based its decision to terminate parental rights on the following findings of fact: This proceeding is the second child protective proceeding brought by MDHHS on behalf of [the child]. [The child], currently six years old, has now been in the custody of MDHHS during this proceeding for in excess of one year. . . . . 2018See In re Mathew H., 2017 ME 151 , ¶ 2, 167 A.3d 561 . [¶ 3] The court based its decision to terminate parental rights on the following findings of fact: This proceeding is the second child protective proceeding brought by MDHHS on behalf of [the child]. [The child], currently six years old, has now been in the custody of MDHHS during this proceeding for in excess of one year. .... | 2 | 2 |
In re Mathew H.green2 sentences2018See In re Matthew H., 2017 ME 151 , ¶ 2, 167 A.3d 561 . [¶3] The court based its decision to terminate parental rights on the following findings of fact: This proceeding is the second child protective proceeding brought by MDHHS on behalf of [the child]. [The child], currently six years old, has now been in the custody of MDHHS during this proceeding for in excess of one year. . . . . 2018See In re Mathew H., 2017 ME 151 , ¶ 2, 167 A.3d 561 . [¶ 3] The court based its decision to terminate parental rights on the following findings of fact: This proceeding is the second child protective proceeding brought by MDHHS on behalf of [the child]. [The child], currently six years old, has now been in the custody of MDHHS during this proceeding for in excess of one year. .... | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fourniergreen1 sentence2021DISCUSSION [¶17] Gaston challenges the court’s denial of his claim of religious privilege; the court’s refusal to use his requested jury instructions; the court’s denial of his motion to continue the sentencing hearing; and the court’s calculation of both the basic and maximum sentence. 9 A. Religious Privilege [¶18] “We review the legal issues regarding the nature and scope of the privilege . . . de novo and [we] review the factual findings for clear error.” Harris Mgmt., Inc., v. Coulombe, 2016 ME 166, ¶ 12 , 151 A.3d 7 ; see Fournier, 2019 ME 28, ¶ 24 , 203 A.3d 801 . [¶19] “A person has a | 1 | 1 |
State of Maine v. Philip S. Fourniergreen1 sentence2021DISCUSSION [¶17] Gaston challenges the court’s denial of his claim of religious privilege; the court’s refusal to use his requested jury instructions; the court’s denial of his motion to continue the sentencing hearing; and the court’s calculation of both the basic and maximum sentence. 9 A. Religious Privilege [¶18] “We review the legal issues regarding the nature and scope of the privilege . . . de novo and [we] review the factual findings for clear error.” Harris Mgmt., Inc., v. Coulombe, 2016 ME 166, ¶ 12 , 151 A.3d 7 ; see Fournier, 2019 ME 28, ¶ 24 , 203 A.3d 801 . [¶19] “A person has a | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Plummergreen1 sentence2002See Estate of Plummer, 666 A.2d 116, 118 (Me.1995). [¶ 11] Dreher and Haggerty’s primary argument is that the court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence to clarify an ambiguity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harris Management, Inc. v. Paul Coulombe
green
2 sentences2021DISCUSSION [¶17] Gaston challenges the court’s denial of his claim of religious privilege; the court’s refusal to use his requested jury instructions; the court’s denial of his motion to continue the sentencing hearing; and the court’s calculation of both the basic and maximum sentence. 9 A. Religious Privilege [¶18] “We review the legal issues regarding the nature and scope of the privilege . . . de novo and [we] review the factual findings for clear error.” Harris Mgmt., Inc., v. Coulombe, 2016 ME 166, ¶ 12 , 151 A.3d 7 ; see Fournier, 2019 ME 28, ¶ 24 , 203 A.3d 801 . [¶19] “A person has a 2021DISCUSSION [¶17] Gaston challenges the court’s denial of his claim of religious privilege; the court’s refusal to use his requested jury instructions; the court’s denial of his motion to continue the sentencing hearing; and the court’s calculation of both the basic and maximum sentence. 9 A. Religious Privilege [¶18] “We review the legal issues regarding the nature and scope of the privilege . . . de novo and [we] review the factual findings for clear error.” Harris Mgmt., Inc., v. Coulombe, 2016 ME 166, ¶ 12 , 151 A.3d 7 ; see Fournier, 2019 ME 28, ¶ 24 , 203 A.3d 801 . [¶19] “A person has a | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State of Maine v. Clarence Cote
green
2 sentences2021State v. Cote, 2015 ME 78, ¶ 9 , 118 A.3d 805 . 2021State v. Cote, 2015 ME 78, ¶ 9 , 118 A.3d 805 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Motion to Quash Bar Counsel Subpoena
green
2 sentences2016We review the legal issues regarding the nature and scope of the privilege and the crime-fraud exception de novo and review the factual findings for clear error. 4 See -In re Motion to Quash Bar Counsel Subpoena, 2009 ME 104, ¶ 20 , 982 A.2d 330 . 2016We review the legal issues regarding the nature and scope of the privilege and the crime-fraud exception de novo and review the factual findings for clear error. 4 See -In re Motion to Quash Bar Counsel Subpoena, 2009 ME 104, ¶ 20 , 982 A.2d 330 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lois Young v. Joseph Lagasse
green
2 sentences2016“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it; if the fact-finder clearly misapprehends the meaning of the evidence; or if the finding is so contrary to the credible evidence that it does not represent the truth and right of the case.” Young v. Lagasse, 2016 ME 96, ¶ 8 , 143 A.3d 131 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 13] “[W]hen the party with the burden of proof is appealing .,, the appellant must show that the evidence compels a contrary finding.” Id. 2016“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it; if the fact-finder clearly misapprehends the meaning of the evidence; or if the finding is so contrary to the credible evidence that it does not represent the truth and right of the case.” Young v. Lagasse, 2016 ME 96, ¶ 8 , 143 A.3d 131 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 13] “[W]hen the party with the burden of proof is appealing .,, the appellant must show that the evidence compels a contrary finding.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Alley v. Parker
green
2 sentences2007A *157 child’s “home state” is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” 19-A M.R.S. § 1732(7) (2006). [¶ 13] We review a court’s decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction in a divorce case de novo, Norris Family Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102, ¶8 , 879 A.2d 1007, 1011 , although we review the factual findings for clear error, see Alley v. Parker, 1998 ME 33, ¶ 5 , 707 A.2d 77, 78 . [¶ 14] The major dispute is whether Alliso 2007A *157 child’s “home state” is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” 19-A M.R.S. § 1732(7) (2006). [¶ 13] We review a court’s decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction in a divorce case de novo, Norris Family Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102, ¶8 , 879 A.2d 1007, 1011 , although we review the factual findings for clear error, see Alley v. Parker, 1998 ME 33, ¶ 5 , 707 A.2d 77, 78 . [¶ 14] The major dispute is whether Alliso | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Norris Family Associates, LLC v. Town of Phippsburg
green
2 sentences2007A *157 child’s “home state” is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” 19-A M.R.S. § 1732(7) (2006). [¶ 13] We review a court’s decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction in a divorce case de novo, Norris Family Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102, ¶8 , 879 A.2d 1007, 1011 , although we review the factual findings for clear error, see Alley v. Parker, 1998 ME 33, ¶ 5 , 707 A.2d 77, 78 . [¶ 14] The major dispute is whether Alliso 2007A *157 child’s “home state” is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” 19-A M.R.S. § 1732(7) (2006). [¶ 13] We review a court’s decision regarding subject matter jurisdiction in a divorce case de novo, Norris Family Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102, ¶8 , 879 A.2d 1007, 1011 , although we review the factual findings for clear error, see Alley v. Parker, 1998 ME 33, ¶ 5 , 707 A.2d 77, 78 . [¶ 14] The major dispute is whether Alliso | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.