6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beesley v. Landmark Realty, Inc.green1 sentence2023See Beesley v. Landmark Realty, Inc .. 464 A.2d 936,937 (Me. 1983)(by failing to challenge by affidavit the findings of the ex parte order, defendant was precluded from challenging the findings at the hearing on the motion to dissolve); see also Levine v. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n, 2004 ME 131 , ,r,r 11 & 12, 861 A.2d 678,602 (defendant failed to challenge by affidavit any of the findings in the ex parte order); Sanders v. Sanders. 1998 ME 100 , ,r 7, 711 A.2d 124, 126-127 (defendant did not challenge the findings by affidavit, therefore plaintiff had no burden to justify them). 1 The Court may in i | 1 | 1 |
Levine v. Keybank National Ass'ngreen2 sentences2023See Beesley v. Landmark Realty, Inc .. 464 A.2d 936,937 (Me. 1983)(by failing to challenge by affidavit the findings of the ex parte order, defendant was precluded from challenging the findings at the hearing on the motion to dissolve); see also Levine v. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n, 2004 ME 131 , ,r,r 11 & 12, 861 A.2d 678,602 (defendant failed to challenge by affidavit any of the findings in the ex parte order); Sanders v. Sanders. 1998 ME 100 , ,r 7, 711 A.2d 124, 126-127 (defendant did not challenge the findings by affidavit, therefore plaintiff had no burden to justify them). 1 The Court may in i 2023See Beesley v. Landmark Realty, Inc .. 464 A.2d 936,937 (Me. 1983)(by failing to challenge by affidavit the findings of the ex parte order, defendant was precluded from challenging the findings at the hearing on the motion to dissolve); see also Levine v. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n, 2004 ME 131 , ,r,r 11 & 12, 861 A.2d 678,602 (defendant failed to challenge by affidavit any of the findings in the ex parte order); Sanders v. Sanders. 1998 ME 100 , ,r 7, 711 A.2d 124, 126-127 (defendant did not challenge the findings by affidavit, therefore plaintiff had no burden to justify them). 1 The Court may in i | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2023See Beesley v. Landmark Realty, Inc .. 464 A.2d 936,937 (Me. 1983)(by failing to challenge by affidavit the findings of the ex parte order, defendant was precluded from challenging the findings at the hearing on the motion to dissolve); see also Levine v. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n, 2004 ME 131 , ,r,r 11 & 12, 861 A.2d 678,602 (defendant failed to challenge by affidavit any of the findings in the ex parte order); Sanders v. Sanders. 1998 ME 100 , ,r 7, 711 A.2d 124, 126-127 (defendant did not challenge the findings by affidavit, therefore plaintiff had no burden to justify them). 1 The Court may in i 2023See Beesley v. Landmark Realty, Inc .. 464 A.2d 936,937 (Me. 1983)(by failing to challenge by affidavit the findings of the ex parte order, defendant was precluded from challenging the findings at the hearing on the motion to dissolve); see also Levine v. Keybank Nat'l Ass'n, 2004 ME 131 , ,r,r 11 & 12, 861 A.2d 678,602 (defendant failed to challenge by affidavit any of the findings in the ex parte order); Sanders v. Sanders. 1998 ME 100 , ,r 7, 711 A.2d 124, 126-127 (defendant did not challenge the findings by affidavit, therefore plaintiff had no burden to justify them). 1 The Court may in i | 1 | 1 |
Palacci v. Palaccigreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Ocean Nat’l Bank of Kennebunk v. Conley, 670 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (holding court erred in declining to treat a motion for reconsideration as a Rule 60(b) motion as the response to the motion suggested and in denying the motion without a hearing); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me.1992) (holding divorce judgment awarding relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) was appropriate, even though the motion was styled as a motion for reconsideration because the accompanying memorandum of law made clear that the motion sought relief under Rule 60(b)). | 1 | 1 |
Ocean National Bank of Kennebunk v. Conleygreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Ocean Nat’l Bank of Kennebunk v. Conley, 670 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (holding court erred in declining to treat a motion for reconsideration as a Rule 60(b) motion as the response to the motion suggested and in denying the motion without a hearing); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me.1992) (holding divorce judgment awarding relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) was appropriate, even though the motion was styled as a motion for reconsideration because the accompanying memorandum of law made clear that the motion sought relief under Rule 60(b)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sargent v. Sargent
green
2 sentences2026As we have noted before, most Rule 60(b) motions “are decided on the basis of affidavits and other documentary evidence usually without the necessity of a lengthy evidentiary hearing.” Sargent v. Sargent, 1997 ME 38, ¶¶ 4-5 , 691 A.2d 184 . [¶10] Here, the court had before it an extensive record, including Petitioners’ detailed, verified Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment; supporting affidavits and dozens of exhibits; and, in addition, substantive responses of the adoptive parents, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Guardian ad Litem. 2026As we have noted before, most Rule 60(b) motions “are decided on the basis of affidavits and other documentary evidence usually without the necessity of a lengthy evidentiary hearing.” Sargent v. Sargent, 1997 ME 38, ¶¶ 4-5 , 691 A.2d 184 . [¶10] Here, the court had before it an extensive record, including Petitioners’ detailed, verified Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment; supporting affidavits and dozens of exhibits; and, in addition, substantive responses of the adoptive parents, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Guardian ad Litem. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re David H.
green
2 sentences2026In re Child of Shaina T., 2019 ME 107, ¶ 17 , 211 A.3d 229 ; In re David H., 2009 ME 131, ¶ 34 , 985 A.2d 490 . 2026In re Child of Shaina T., 2019 ME 107, ¶ 17 , 211 A.3d 229 ; In re David H., 2009 ME 131, ¶ 34 , 985 A.2d 490 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re Child of Shaina T.
green
2 sentences2026In re Child of Shaina T., 2019 ME 107, ¶ 17 , 211 A.3d 229 ; In re David H., 2009 ME 131, ¶ 34 , 985 A.2d 490 . 2026In re Child of Shaina T., 2019 ME 107, ¶ 17 , 211 A.3d 229 ; In re David H., 2009 ME 131, ¶ 34 , 985 A.2d 490 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Porrazzo v. Karofsky
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Rodway
green
1 sentence1985It held that “[t]he motion is not appropriate or proper for the relief demanded and is not a legally recognized proceeding to take the place of a civil action.” Grant filed a timely appeal, arguing that the court erred in dismissing the motion without a hearing. 1 Rule 44(c) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure states that: “[appointed counsel shall under no circumstances accept from the defendant or from anyone else on his behalf any compensation for services or costs of defense, except pursuant to court order.” We have deemed a violation of that rule to be “conduct prejudicial to the adm | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.