6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aldus v. Stategreen2 sentences2012As we recently recognized in State v. Ali, our precedents applying the post-conviction review statute uniformly hold that when a direct appeal is not available, post-conviction review is “the exclusive method of review of those criminal judgments.” 15 M.R.S, § 2122 (2010); see State v. Trott, 2004 ME 15, ¶¶ 5, 13 , 841 A.2d 789 (concluding that post-conviction review in the Superior Court is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Aldus v. State, 2000 ME 47, ¶ 11 , 748 A.2d 463 (considering on appeal an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought by a n 2012As we recently recognized in State v. Ali, our precedents applying the post-conviction review statute uniformly hold that when a direct appeal is not available, post-conviction review is “the exclusive method of review of those criminal judgments.” 15 M.R.S, § 2122 (2010); see State v. Trott, 2004 ME 15, ¶¶ 5, 13 , 841 A.2d 789 (concluding that post-conviction review in the Superior Court is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Aldus v. State, 2000 ME 47, ¶ 11 , 748 A.2d 463 (considering on appeal an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought by a n | 2 | 2 |
State v. Trottgreen2 sentences2012As we recently recognized in State v. Ali, our precedents applying the post-conviction review statute uniformly hold that when a direct appeal is not available, post-conviction review is “the exclusive method of review of those criminal judgments.” 15 M.R.S, § 2122 (2010); see State v. Trott, 2004 ME 15, ¶¶ 5, 13 , 841 A.2d 789 (concluding that post-conviction review in the Superior Court is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Aldus v. State, 2000 ME 47, ¶ 11 , 748 A.2d 463 (considering on appeal an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought by a n 2012As we recently recognized in State v. Ali, our precedents applying the post-conviction review statute uniformly hold that when a direct appeal is not available, post-conviction review is “the exclusive method of review of those criminal judgments.” 15 M.R.S, § 2122 (2010); see State v. Trott, 2004 ME 15, ¶¶ 5, 13 , 841 A.2d 789 (concluding that post-conviction review in the Superior Court is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Aldus v. State, 2000 ME 47, ¶ 11 , 748 A.2d 463 (considering on appeal an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought by a n | 2 | 2 |
State v. Aligreen2 sentences2014Conduct 3.1(a), 3.3(a)(1), (3) (describing ethical obligations). [¶ 3] We do not consider such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 1 See State v. Ali, 2011 ME 122, ¶ 20 , 32 A.3d 1019 (reiterating that post-conviction review is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that we will consider such claims only after a certificate of probable cause has been issued following a hearing on a post-conviction petition); State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶¶ 4-5 , 698 A.2d 521 (clarifying then-existing law to hold that we will not consider an ineffective 2014Conduct 3.1(a), 3.3(a)(1), (3) (describing ethical obligations). [¶ 3] We do not consider such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 1 See State v. Ali, 2011 ME 122, ¶ 20 , 32 A.3d 1019 (reiterating that post-conviction review is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that we will consider such claims only after a certificate of probable cause has been issued following a hearing on a post-conviction petition); State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶¶ 4-5 , 698 A.2d 521 (clarifying then-existing law to hold that we will not consider an ineffective | 1 | 2 |
General Foods Corp. v. Haines and Co., Inc.green1 sentence1979Ratliff v. Cooper Laboratories, Inc., 444 F.2d 745, 748 (4th Cir. 1971); see General Foods Corp. v. Haines and Co., Inc., 458 F.Supp. 1167, 1170 (D.Del.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Annie Nell Ratliff and Henry Ratliff v. Cooper Laboratories, Inc., Alice W. Nichols v. Sterling Drug Company, Inc., a Corporationgreen1 sentence1979Ratliff v. Cooper Laboratories, Inc., 444 F.2d 745, 748 (4th Cir. 1971); see General Foods Corp. v. Haines and Co., Inc., 458 F.Supp. 1167, 1170 (D.Del.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Banks
green
1 sentence2018However, because it ruled that a post-arbitration motion to vacate was a valid avenue to challenge arbitrability, 2012 ME 6 ,r,r 12-13, and thereafter focused on the Superior Court's decision - rather than on the Probate Court's prior decision - the Law Court decision suggests that the Superior Court was the appropriate forum to test arbitrability. 9 J ( I Corp., 2015 ME 63 , 22, 116 A.3d 466 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Paul Remmes v. The Mark Travel Corporation
green
2 sentences2018However, because it ruled that a post-arbitration motion to vacate was a valid avenue to challenge arbitrability, 2012 ME 6 ,r,r 12-13, and thereafter focused on the Superior Court's decision - rather than on the Probate Court's prior decision - the Law Court decision suggests that the Superior Court was the appropriate forum to test arbitrability. 9 J ( I Corp., 2015 ME 63 , 22, 116 A.3d 466 . 2018However, because it ruled that a post-arbitration motion to vacate was a valid avenue to challenge arbitrability, 2012 ME 6 ,r,r 12-13, and thereafter focused on the Superior Court's decision - rather than on the Probate Court's prior decision - the Law Court decision suggests that the Superior Court was the appropriate forum to test arbitrability. 9 J ( I Corp., 2015 ME 63 , 22, 116 A.3d 466 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Nichols
green
2 sentences2014Conduct 3.1(a), 3.3(a)(1), (3) (describing ethical obligations). [¶ 3] We do not consider such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 1 See State v. Ali, 2011 ME 122, ¶ 20 , 32 A.3d 1019 (reiterating that post-conviction review is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that we will consider such claims only after a certificate of probable cause has been issued following a hearing on a post-conviction petition); State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶¶ 4-5 , 698 A.2d 521 (clarifying then-existing law to hold that we will not consider an ineffective 2014Conduct 3.1(a), 3.3(a)(1), (3) (describing ethical obligations). [¶ 3] We do not consider such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 1 See State v. Ali, 2011 ME 122, ¶ 20 , 32 A.3d 1019 (reiterating that post-conviction review is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that we will consider such claims only after a certificate of probable cause has been issued following a hearing on a post-conviction petition); State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶¶ 4-5 , 698 A.2d 521 (clarifying then-existing law to hold that we will not consider an ineffective | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State of Maine v. Raymond Bellavance Jr.
green
2 sentences2014Conduct 3.1(a), 3.3(a)(1), (3) (describing ethical obligations). [¶ 3] We do not consider such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 1 See State v. Ali, 2011 ME 122, ¶ 20 , 32 A.3d 1019 (reiterating that post-conviction review is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that we will consider such claims only after a certificate of probable cause has been issued following a hearing on a post-conviction petition); State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶¶ 4-5 , 698 A.2d 521 (clarifying then-existing law to hold that we will not consider an ineffective 2014Conduct 3.1(a), 3.3(a)(1), (3) (describing ethical obligations). [¶ 3] We do not consider such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. 1 See State v. Ali, 2011 ME 122, ¶ 20 , 32 A.3d 1019 (reiterating that post-conviction review is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that we will consider such claims only after a certificate of probable cause has been issued following a hearing on a post-conviction petition); State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶¶ 4-5 , 698 A.2d 521 (clarifying then-existing law to hold that we will not consider an ineffective | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ashall Homes Ltd. v. ROK Entertainment Group Inc.
green
1 sentence2011The Delaware Chancery Court addressed a forum clause very similar to the present clause in Ashall Homes Ltd. v. ROK Entertainment Group, Inc., 992 A.2d 1239 (Del. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.