Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Antongreen2 sentences2012The Law Court also concluded that "a license suspension hearing is not a quasi-criminal proceeding, but rather a 'reasonable regulatory measure to protect public safety."' Powell, 614 A. 2d at 1307 (quoting State v. Anton, 463 A. 2d 703, 707 (Me. 1983)). 2000A proceeding to revoke a driver’s license is a reasonable regulatory measure to protect public safety.”); Powell v. State, 614 A.2d 1303 (Me. 1992) (holding that the exclusionary rule is not applicable in administrative license suspension hearings, noting that “a license suspension hearing is not a quasi-criminal proceeding, but rather a ‘reasonable regulatory measure to protect public safety.””) (quoting Anton, 463 A.2d at 707 ). 7 hay fever at the time of the incident and that the fact that he was unable to satisfy the machine due to his physical incapacity is an inappropriate basis upon whi | 2 | 3 |
State v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2017Evid. 101(a) (providing that the Maine Rules of Evidence apply in court proceedings). [¶11] Furthermore, the “extent and scope of impeachment testimony lies within the limits of judicial discretion.” State v. Bennett, 658 A.2d 1058, 1062 (Me. 1995) (quotation marks omitted). 2017Evid. 101(a) - (providing that the Maine Rules of Evidence apply in court proceedings). [¶ 11] Furthermore, the “extent and scope of impeachment testimony lies within the limits of judicial discretion.” State v. Bennett, 658 A.2d 1058, 1062 (Me. 1995) (quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Simsred1 sentence2021See People v. Sims, 21 Cal. 3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 (1982) (criminal prosecution in welfare fraud case was collaterally estopped by administrative fair hearing based on California's "unique statutory scheme" for prosecuting welfare fraud cases) superseded by statute as noted in Gikas v. Zolin, 6 Cal. 4 ~ 841,851, 863 P.2d 745 (1993); People v. Watt, 320 N.W. 2d 333 (Mich. App., 1982) (defendant convicted of welfare fraud - collateral estoppel applied to bar prosecution). 2 The court finds the decisions in Williams, Malloy and Cook and the dissenting opinion in People v. Sims, 32 Cal. 3d at 490-9 | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See also Cook v. State, 921 So.2d 631 (Fla. App., 2d Dist., 2005) (administrative decision by teacher disciplinary commission did not collaterally estop later criminal prosecution) (collecting cases); State v. Alvey, 678 P.2d 5 (Ha. 1984) (administrative finding by prison disciplinary committee did not collaterally estop criminal prosecution). 'State v. McLean, 560 A.2d 1088, 1090 (Me. 1989) did not address collateral estoppel, but was based on a statute making it clear that determination of facts by the Secretary of State in a license suspension hearing is independent of the same or similar f | 1 | 1 |
Gikas v. Zolingreen1 sentence2021See People v. Sims, 21 Cal. 3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 (1982) (criminal prosecution in welfare fraud case was collaterally estopped by administrative fair hearing based on California's "unique statutory scheme" for prosecuting welfare fraud cases) superseded by statute as noted in Gikas v. Zolin, 6 Cal. 4 ~ 841,851, 863 P.2d 745 (1993); People v. Watt, 320 N.W. 2d 333 (Mich. App., 1982) (defendant convicted of welfare fraud - collateral estoppel applied to bar prosecution). 2 The court finds the decisions in Williams, Malloy and Cook and the dissenting opinion in People v. Sims, 32 Cal. 3d at 490-9 | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacLeangreen1 sentence2021See also Cook v. State, 921 So.2d 631 (Fla. App., 2d Dist., 2005) (administrative decision by teacher disciplinary commission did not collaterally estop later criminal prosecution) (collecting cases); State v. Alvey, 678 P.2d 5 (Ha. 1984) (administrative finding by prison disciplinary committee did not collaterally estop criminal prosecution). 'State v. McLean, 560 A.2d 1088, 1090 (Me. 1989) did not address collateral estoppel, but was based on a statute making it clear that determination of facts by the Secretary of State in a license suspension hearing is independent of the same or similar f | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Secretary of State
green
2 sentences2012The Law Court also concluded that "a license suspension hearing is not a quasi-criminal proceeding, but rather a 'reasonable regulatory measure to protect public safety."' Powell, 614 A. 2d at 1307 (quoting State v. Anton, 463 A. 2d 703, 707 (Me. 1983)). 2000A proceeding to revoke a driver’s license is a reasonable regulatory measure to protect public safety.”); Powell v. State, 614 A.2d 1303 (Me. 1992) (holding that the exclusionary rule is not applicable in administrative license suspension hearings, noting that “a license suspension hearing is not a quasi-criminal proceeding, but rather a ‘reasonable regulatory measure to protect public safety.””) (quoting Anton, 463 A.2d at 707 ). 7 hay fever at the time of the incident and that the fact that he was unable to satisfy the machine due to his physical incapacity is an inappropriate basis upon whi | 2 | 2000–2012 |
People v. Watt
green
1 sentence2021See People v. Sims, 21 Cal. 3d 468 , 651 P.2d 321 (1982) (criminal prosecution in welfare fraud case was collaterally estopped by administrative fair hearing based on California's "unique statutory scheme" for prosecuting welfare fraud cases) superseded by statute as noted in Gikas v. Zolin, 6 Cal. 4 ~ 841,851, 863 P.2d 745 (1993); People v. Watt, 320 N.W. 2d 333 (Mich. App., 1982) (defendant convicted of welfare fraud - collateral estoppel applied to bar prosecution). 2 The court finds the decisions in Williams, Malloy and Cook and the dissenting opinion in People v. Sims, 32 Cal. 3d at 490-9 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Alvey
green
1 sentence2021See also Cook v. State, 921 So.2d 631 (Fla. App., 2d Dist., 2005) (administrative decision by teacher disciplinary commission did not collaterally estop later criminal prosecution) (collecting cases); State v. Alvey, 678 P.2d 5 (Ha. 1984) (administrative finding by prison disciplinary committee did not collaterally estop criminal prosecution). 'State v. McLean, 560 A.2d 1088, 1090 (Me. 1989) did not address collateral estoppel, but was based on a statute making it clear that determination of facts by the Secretary of State in a license suspension hearing is independent of the same or similar f | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.