prima facie claim in Maine

2023“All that is required is that the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof.” State v. Holland, 2009 ME 72, ¶ 22 , 976 A.2d 227 (quotation marks omitted). [¶12] “To establish a prima facie claim that a jury selection process violates the constitutional requirement that the jury be selected from a pool representative of the community at large,” we look to the test outlined in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).

2023“All that is required is that the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof.” State v. Holland, 2009 ME 72, ¶ 22 , 976 A.2d 227 (quotation marks omitted). [¶12] “To establish a prima facie claim that a jury selection process violates the constitutional requirement that the jury be selected from a pool representative of the community at large,” we look to the test outlined in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).

2023“Temporal proximity of an employer’s awareness of protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action may serve as the causal link for purposes of a prima facie case.” Id; see also Watt v. UniFirst Corp., 2009 ME 47 , P 33, 969 A.2d 897 ; Doyle, 2003 ME 61 , P 20, 824 A.2d 48 .

2016As the Law Court in Doyle v. Department of Human Services, 2003 ME 61 , ~20 noted, in part, To establish a prima facie claim of retaliation, the employee must show that she engaged in statutorily protected activity; her employer made an employment decision that adversely affected her; and that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. [Internal citations omitted].

2022To establish a prima facie claim for negligence the plaintiff must show "a duty owed, a breach of that duty, and an injury to the plaintiff that is proximately caused by a breach of that duty." Canney v. Strathglass Holdings, LLC, 2017 ME 64 ,, 19, 159 A.3d 330 (quotation marks omitted).

2020To establish a prima facie claim for negligence a plaintiff must show "a duty owed, a breach of that duty, and an injury to the plaintiff that is proximately caused by a breach of that duty." Canney v. Strathglass Holdings, LLC, 2017 ME 64 , ,r 19, 159 A.3d 330 (quotation marks omitted).

2022To establish a prima facie claim for negligence the plaintiff must show "a duty owed, a breach of that duty, and an injury to the plaintiff that is proximately caused by a breach of that duty." Canney v. Strathglass Holdings, LLC, 2017 ME 64 ,, 19, 159 A.3d 330 (quotation marks omitted).

2020To establish a prima facie claim for negligence a plaintiff must show "a duty owed, a breach of that duty, and an injury to the plaintiff that is proximately caused by a breach of that duty." Canney v. Strathglass Holdings, LLC, 2017 ME 64 , ,r 19, 159 A.3d 330 (quotation marks omitted).

2022Id. ,r 13 (quoting Nader I, 2012 ME 57 if 34, 41 .3d 551.) It does not depend on the reliability or credibility of the evidence.

2021See Morse Brothers, 2001 ME 70, ¶ 18 , 772 A.2d 842 ; Nader I, 2012 ME 57, ¶¶ 30-33 , 41 A.3d 551 ; Gaudette I, 2017 ME 86 , ¶ 18, 160 A.3d 1190 .

2022Instead, the “jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof.” Id. at 538 . [¶28] Relying on the Supreme Court case Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979), we have stated: To establish a prima facie claim that a jury selection process violates the constitutional requirement that the jury be selected 15 from a pool representative of the community at large, the challenging party has the burden to show that: (1) the group alleged to be excl

2022Instead, the “jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof.” Id. at 538 . [¶28] Relying on the Supreme Court case Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979), we have stated: To establish a prima facie claim that a jury selection process violates the constitutional requirement that the jury be selected 15 from a pool representative of the community at large, the challenging party has the burden to show that: (1) the group alleged to be excl

2021In contrast to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, “prima facie proof is a low standard that does not depend on the reliability or credibility of the evidence.” Nader I, 2012 ME 57, ¶ 34 , 41 A.3d 551 (quoting Cookson v. State, 2011 ME 53, ¶ 8 , 17 A.3d 1208 ). [¶38] The Court today points out that, in determining whether the nonmoving party has met its prima facie burden, the focus is on only the 24 nonmoving party’s submittal.

2021In contrast to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, “prima facie proof is a low standard that does not depend on the reliability or credibility of the evidence.” Nader I, 2012 ME 57, ¶ 34 , 41 A.3d 551 (quoting Cookson v. State, 2011 ME 53, ¶ 8 , 17 A.3d 1208 ). [¶38] The Court today points out that, in determining whether the nonmoving party has met its prima facie burden, the focus is on only the 24 nonmoving party’s submittal.

2019Regulation , 2015 ME 44 , ¶ 12, 114 A.3d 988 (quotation marks omitted).

2019Regulation , 2015 ME 44 , ¶ 12, 114 A.3d 988 (quotation marks omitted).

2017Id. ¶¶ 34-35 (quotation marks omitted); cf. Nader II, 2013 ME 51, ¶ 19 , 66 A.3d 571 (cautioning that “averments made on information and belief” do not satisfy a prima facie burden, and the attesting party must instead provide some admissible evidence (quotation marks omitted)).

2017Id. ¶¶ 34-35 (quotation marks omitted); cf. Nader II, 2013 ME 51, ¶ 19 , 66 A.3d 571 (cautioning that “averments made on information and belief” do not satisfy a prima facie burden, and the attesting party must instead provide some admissible evidence (quotation marks omitted)).

2023Count I Conclusion For the reasons above, the TCFCU’s Motion for Summary Judgment in regard to Count I is DENIED. 15 Count II: Retaliation To establish a prima facie claim of retaliation, Owen must establish: (1) that she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) her employer made an employment decision that adversely affected her; and (3) that “there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Daniels, 2012 ME 80, ¶ 21 , 45 A.3d 722 .

2023Count I Conclusion For the reasons above, the TCFCU’s Motion for Summary Judgment in regard to Count I is DENIED. 15 Count II: Retaliation To establish a prima facie claim of retaliation, Owen must establish: (1) that she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) her employer made an employment decision that adversely affected her; and (3) that “there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Daniels, 2012 ME 80, ¶ 21 , 45 A.3d 722 .

2023Rather, “[a]ll that is required is that the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). [¶19] “To establish a prima facie claim that a jury selection process violates the constitutional requirement that the jury be selected from a pool representative of the community at large,” we have adopted the three-part test set forth in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979).

2023Town of Blue Hill v. Leighton, 2011 ME 103 , { 12 n.5, 30 A.3d 848 , 4 Plaintiffs allegations regarding ex parte communications, bias, and conflicts of interest satisfy the prima facie standard.

2023Town of Blue Hill v. Leighton, 2011 ME 103 , { 12 n.5, 30 A.3d 848 , 4 Plaintiffs allegations regarding ex parte communications, bias, and conflicts of interest satisfy the prima facie standard.

2022Id. ,r 13 (quoting Nader I, 2012 ME 57 if 34, 41 .3d 551.) It does not depend on the reliability or credibility of the evidence.

2022Id. ¶ 23 (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979)). [¶18] Black people are a distinctive group in the community.

2022In Davis v. RC & Sons Paving, Inc., the Law Court held that "a non-possessor of land who negligently creates a dangerous condition on the land may be liable for reasonably foreseeable harms." 2011 ME 88 ,, 19, 26 A.3d 787 (quotation marks omitted).

2022In Davis v. RC & Sons Paving, Inc., the Law Court held that "a non-possessor of land who negligently creates a dangerous condition on the land may be liable for reasonably foreseeable harms." 2011 ME 88 ,, 19, 26 A.3d 787 (quotation marks omitted).

2020In Maine, "a business owner owes a positive duty of exercising reasonable care in providing reasonably safe premises ... when it knows or should have known of a risk to customers on its premises." Durham, 2005 ME 53 , ,r 8, 870 A.2d 577 (quotation marks omitted).

2020In Maine, "a business owner owes a positive duty of exercising reasonable care in providing reasonably safe premises ... when it knows or should have known of a risk to customers on its premises." Durham, 2005 ME 53 , ,r 8, 870 A.2d 577 (quotation marks omitted).

2020The prima facie standard is low, and "does not depend on the reliability or the credibility of evidence, all of which may be considered at some later time in the process." Id.

2019Ass’n, 2011 ME 26, ¶ 11 , 13 A.3d 773 (quotation marks omitted). 3 To establish a prima facie claim of retaliation under section 833 of the WPA, an employee must “show that (1) he engaged in activity protected by the WPA; (2) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Galouch v. Dep’t of Prof’l & Fin.

2019Ass’n, 2011 ME 26, ¶ 11 , 13 A.3d 773 (quotation marks omitted). 3 To establish a prima facie claim of retaliation under section 833 of the WPA, an employee must “show that (1) he engaged in activity protected by the WPA; (2) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Galouch v. Dep’t of Prof’l & Fin.

2019If the defendant fails to include such an affidavit, “the . . . motion asserting the ineffective assistance of counsel must be denied.” Id. [¶16] When a motion is timely filed with the required affidavit(s), the judge who issued the revocation judgment will review the allegations and determine, applying the Strickland test, whether the defendant has made out a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance.

2019If the defendant fails to include such an affidavit, "the ... motion asserting the ineffective assistance of counsel must be denied." Id. [¶16] When a motion is timely filed with the required affidavit(s), the judge who issued the revocation judgment will review the allegations and determine, applying the Strickland test, whether the defendant has made out a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance.

2018Stanton v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2001 ME 96 , ,r 11, 773 A.2d 1045 .

2018Stanton v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2001 ME 96 , ,r 11, 773 A.2d 1045 .

2017Barron in accordance with 14 M.R.S. § 6324.” The judgment did not provide a specific time frame for disbursements, although its reference to section 6324 inferentially incorporated the required thirty-day period to object to the report of sale before the disbursements following the sale could be finalized. [¶17] “[Conversion requires an actual interference with- the property owner’s rights beyond a brief and ultimately-harmless withholding.” Lougee, 2012 ME 103, ¶ 22 , 48 A.3d 774 ; see Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Murphy, 512 A.2d 344, 347 (Me. 1986) (stating that conversion require

2017Barron in accordance with 14 M.R.S. § 6324.” The judgment did not provide a specific time frame for disbursements, although its reference to section 6324 inferentially incorporated the required thirty-day period to object to the report of sale before the disbursements following the sale could be finalized. [¶17] “[Conversion requires an actual interference with- the property owner’s rights beyond a brief and ultimately-harmless withholding.” Lougee, 2012 ME 103, ¶ 22 , 48 A.3d 774 ; see Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Murphy, 512 A.2d 344, 347 (Me. 1986) (stating that conversion require