6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holmes v. South Carolinagreen2 sentences2019See Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319 , 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) ("[T]he Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote."); United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303 , 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (stating that the right to present a defense "is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions"). 2019See Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319 , 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) ("[T]he Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote."); United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303 , 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (stating that the right to present a defense "is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions"). | 1 | 1 |
Patrons-Oxford Mutual Insurance v. Dodgegreen1 sentence1991In Patrons-Oxford Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dodge, an insurer claimed that the insured’s prior conviction of aggravated assault proved his intent to cause injury and triggered an exclusion clause similar to that in Forrest’s policy. 426 A.2d 888, 890 (Me.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Scheffer
green
2 sentences2019See Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319 , 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) ("[T]he Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote."); United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303 , 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (stating that the right to present a defense "is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions"). 2019See Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319 , 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) ("[T]he Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote."); United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303 , 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (stating that the right to present a defense "is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions"). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Penney v. Capitol City Transfer, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Penney dealt exclusively with a "survey 6 exception." Jd. ~ 6, 707 A.2d at 389 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Stretton v. City of Lewiston
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 741 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Baybutt Construction Corp. v. Commercial Union Insurance
green
2 sentences1989Id. 1989Id. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Zancker v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York
green
2 sentences1952Defendant urges that the true construction of the exclusion clause is set forth in the case of Zancker v. Northern Insurance Co. (1943), 238 Mo. App. 110 , 176 S. W. (2nd) 523 . 1952Defendant urges that the true construction of the exclusion clause is set forth in the case of Zancker v. Northern Insurance Co. (1943), 238 Mo. App. 110 , 176 S. W. (2nd) 523 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.