6 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Spearingreen1 sentence1984See also State v. Chabot, 478 A.2d 1136, 1137 (Me.1984); State v. Spearin, 477 A.2d 1147, 1151 (Me.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chabotgreen1 sentence1984See also State v. Chabot, 478 A.2d 1136, 1137 (Me.1984); State v. Spearin, 477 A.2d 1147, 1151 (Me.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lang v. Murch
green
2 sentences1983Id. at 915 . 2 In the present case, in vacating petitioner’s conviction, the court first focused upon the fact that defense counsel deprived petitioner of a substantial ground of defense in failing to discover and elicit testimony from petitioner’s brother and brother-in-law, which might have placed “serious doubt” upon the evidence that petitioner had twice before threatened the DeWitts. 1983Id. at 915 . | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Smith v. Padolko
green
2 sentences2012A. Modification of Decree [¶ 14] In the context of a motion to modify a divorce decree brought pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1657(1)(A) (2011), we have consistently held that the trial court must engage in a two-fold inquiry: “First, whether since the prior order there has occurred a change in circumstances sufficiently substantial in its effect upon the children’s best interests to justify a modification; and second, if so, how should the custody arrangement be modified in furtherance of the children’s best interests.” Smith, 2008 ME 56, ¶ 11 , 955 A.2d 740 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 15] Lisa’ 2012A. Modification of Decree [¶ 14] In the context of a motion to modify a divorce decree brought pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1657(1)(A) (2011), we have consistently held that the trial court must engage in a two-fold inquiry: “First, whether since the prior order there has occurred a change in circumstances sufficiently substantial in its effect upon the children’s best interests to justify a modification; and second, if so, how should the custody arrangement be modified in furtherance of the children’s best interests.” Smith, 2008 ME 56, ¶ 11 , 955 A.2d 740 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 15] Lisa’ | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dairy Farm Leasing Co., Inc. v. Hartley
green
1 sentence1985Id. at 1139 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Curlew
green
2 sentences1984As we noted in State v. Curlew, 459 A.2d 160 (Me.1983), beyond the question of the order of proof, the two-fold inquiry required by the corpus delicti rule is: “(1) whether there is sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti exclusive of any admission or confession of the defendant and (2) whether there is sufficient evidence on the whole record to establish corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 164 . 1984As we noted in State v. Curlew, 459 A.2d 160 (Me.1983), beyond the question of the order of proof, the two-fold inquiry required by the corpus delicti rule is: “(1) whether there is sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti exclusive of any admission or confession of the defendant and (2) whether there is sufficient evidence on the whole record to establish corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 164 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Wright v. Superintending Sch. Com., City of Portland
green
1 sentence1975The Wright case suggests a two-fold test for judicial review of a § 473(4) dismissal. 331 A.2d at 646 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.