subject matter inquiry in Maine

1973The appellant further conceded, at oral argument and in his brief, that the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (Kastigar v. United States, 1972, 406 U.S. 441 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 ) was dispositive of his claim that the Maine immunity statute (15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A) is unconstitutional under the constitutions of the State of Maine and of the United States in that the scope of immunity granted under it is so limited as to violate the right against self-incrimination provided by those constitutions.

1973The appellant further conceded, at oral argument and in his brief, that the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (Kastigar v. United States, 1972, 406 U.S. 441 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 ) was dispositive of his claim that the Maine immunity statute (15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A) is unconstitutional under the constitutions of the State of Maine and of the United States in that the scope of immunity granted under it is so limited as to violate the right against self-incrimination provided by those constitutions.

1954The need for some particularized identification of subject matter, as a basis to assess possible materiality, is demonstrated by the case of State v. Ela, 91 Me. 309 .

1954The need for some particularized identification of subject matter, as a basis to assess possible materiality, is demonstrated by the case of State v. Ela, 91 Me. 309 , 39 A. 1001 .

1939The respondent demurred to the information on the ground that more than one offense was charged therein, and it was held: “that the several assignments contained in the information consist of certain alleged successive statements made by defendant while testifying as a witness, and are so related to the one question which was the subject-matter of inquiry in the action in which the testimony was given, and were so linked and blended together in point of time, as to constitute but one act or transaction, and therefore constitute but one offense.” In Black v. State, 13 Ga. App., 541 , 79 S. E.,

1939The respondent demurred to the information on the ground that more than one offense was charged therein, and it was held: “that the several assignments contained in the information consist of certain alleged successive statements made by defendant while testifying as a witness, and are so related to the one question which was the subject-matter of inquiry in the action in which the testimony was given, and were so linked and blended together in point of time, as to constitute but one act or transaction, and therefore constitute but one offense.” In Black v. State, 13 Ga. App., 541 , 79 S. E.,

1905When we speak of a court as having jurisdiction over the subject matter, we mean, as said in State v. Neville, 110 Mo. 345 , 19 S. W. 491 , “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs.” The complaints were for the violation of a city ordinance in regard to the regulation of public carriages.

1905When we speak of a court as having jurisdiction over the subject matter, we mean, as said in State v. Neville, 110 Mo. 345 , 19 S. W. 491 , “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs.” The complaints were for the violation of a city ordinance in regard to the regulation of public carriages.