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 1977–2022 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. Van Sicklegreen1 sentence2017Motion for Franks Hearing [¶ 19] Having concluded that the court did not err in rejecting Thompson’s argument that the affidavit failed to support the District Court judge’s probable cause determination, we next consider the court’s treatment of Thompson’s motion for a Franks hearing. [¶ 20] In contrast to challenging the sufficiency of the information as it is presented in a warrant affidavit, a defendant may seek to invoke the process established in Franks and go behind that information based on a claim that the affiant knowingly or recklessly misstated information, see State v. Hamel, 634 A | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hamelgreen1 sentence2017Motion for Franks Hearing [¶ 19] Having concluded that the court did not err in rejecting Thompson’s argument that the affidavit failed to support the District Court judge’s probable cause determination, we next consider the court’s treatment of Thompson’s motion for a Franks hearing. [¶ 20] In contrast to challenging the sufficiency of the information as it is presented in a warrant affidavit, a defendant may seek to invoke the process established in Franks and go behind that information based on a claim that the affiant knowingly or recklessly misstated information, see State v. Hamel, 634 A | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mason McMurtreygreen1 sentence2017See McMurtrey, 704 F.3d at 504 (“[T]he court should not give the government an opportunity to present its evidence on the validity of the warrant without converting the hearing into a full evidentiary Franks hearing, including full cross-examination of government witnesses.”). [¶27] We emphasize that our remand instruction for the court to conduct a full Franks hearing does not suggest any determination about whether Thompson made the substantial preliminary showing that is ordinarily required as a predicate to such a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Camden National Bank v. St. Clair
green
2 sentences2000At page 23 the Law Court stated “FMCC challenged our decision in Camden National Bank, 309 A.2d at 330 -31 as part of its opposition to Thompson's motion for summary judgment. 1994FMCC challenged our decision in Camden National Bank, 309 A.2d at 330 -31 as part of its opposition to Thompson’s motion for summary judgment. | 2 | 1994–2000 |
Darren Johnson v. York Hospital
green
1 sentence2022Count Five - Sexual flarassment in Employment Title 5 M.R.S. § 4572(1)(A) provides that it 1s unlawful employment discrimination "[fJor any employer to ... discriminate with respect to ... terms, conditions or privileges of employment or any other matter directly or indirectly related to employment ... because of ... [the employee's] ... sex ...." See Johnson v. York Hosp., 2019 ME 176 , ~ 17, 222 A.3d 624 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Silva
green
2 sentences2017The near-nonexistent record on the discovery issue would make it difficult to determine whether the court’s denial of Thompson’s motion exceeded its "substantial deference in overseeing the parties’ discovery,” which, to warrant relief on appeal, requires a showing that the effect of the order "is so significant as to deprive him of a fair trial.” State v. Silva, 2012 ME 120, ¶ 8 , 56 A.3d 1230 . 2017The near-nonexistent record on the discovery issue would make it difficult to determine whether the court’s denial of Thompson’s motion exceeded its "substantial deference in overseeing the parties’ discovery,” which, to warrant relief on appeal, requires a showing that the effect of the order "is so significant as to deprive him of a fair trial.” State v. Silva, 2012 ME 120, ¶ 8 , 56 A.3d 1230 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Poulin v. Colby College
green
1 sentence1985We refer to the plaintiffs status as business invitee in its descriptive sense, cognizant of our opinion in Poulin v. Colby College, 402 A.2d 846 (Me.1979) in which we abandoned the distinction between invitees and licensees and employed instead a unitary standard that imposes on a landowner a duty of reasonable care in all the circumstances to those lawfully on the premises. 3 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1977Although in Thompson we adverted in general to the desirability of renewing objections following the charge in a context where, as here, the differences between the charge given and the charge requested were crystal clear, 2 in Thompson defendant had actually attempted a renewal of objection. ( 370 A.2d at 653 ) Hence, not only did Thompson decide nothing as to cases in which, as here, no such renewal of objection was undertaken but also because of the particular characteristics of the renewal of objection in Thompson , we there reinforced the teaching of Millett that issues are ripe for revie | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.