Notes of Decisions
Cited in
165
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case:
Roberts v. State of Maine, 48 F.3d 1287 (1st Cir. 1995).
Roberts v. State of Maine, 48 F.3d 1287 (1st Cir. 1995).
· cites it 8× “29 M.R.S.A. §§ 1312, 1312-B. Petitioner-Appellant Alan D.”
State v. McConvey, 459 A.2d 562 (Me. 1983).
· cites it 12× “We address the defendant’s contentions that (1) his second trial was barred by principles of double jeopardy and that (2) the presiding justice erred in admitting, as part of the State’s rebuttal, the blood-alcohol test results allegedly obtained in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. §…”
State v. Roche, 681 A.2d 472 (Me. 1996).
· cites it 8× “) following a jury trial that resulted in a verdict of not guilty on- one count of manslaughter and guilty on one count of operating under the influence (“OUI”) in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1992). 1 The jury considered as part of the evidence relating to the OUI charge…”
State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489 (Me. 1985).
· cites it 6× “Defendant argues that even if the involuntary blood test administered in this case satisfies constitutional requirements, the results of that test must be excluded from evidence 3 because the taking of defendant’s blood after he had refused a blood test violates Maine’s implied…”
State of Maine v. Lyanne Lemeunier-Fitzgerald, 2018 ME 85 (Me. 2018).
· cites it 4× “439, § 1 (codified at 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (Supp. 1970)). That statute provided that any person operating or attempting to operate a motor vehicle in Maine who had been arrested for operating while potential dissipation of the evidence through treatment at the hospital.”
State v. Pineau, 491 A.2d 1165 (Me. 1985).
· cites it 9× “We hold, on the facts of this case, the defendant’s conduct cannot be deemed a “failure to comply” with 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (Supp.1983-1984) 3 for inculpatory evidentiary purposes, and therefore, the court’s instructions were erroneous.”
State v. Carter, 443 A.2d 958 (Me. 1982).
· cites it 11× “§ 203 (two counts), and operating under the influence, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (a third count). Seasonably, but unsuccessfully, the Defendant moved to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test on the ground that the test was administered in violation of 29 M.”
State v. Pickering, 462 A.2d 1151 (Me. 1983).
· cites it 5× “29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (Supp.1982-1983). Confronted on this Defendant's appeal with a challenge to the law's constitutionality, today's majority mount their defense to the duplicative aspects of this statute on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v.”
State v. Plante, 417 A.2d 991 (Me. 1980).
· cites it 5× “On September 21, 1979, defendant William Plante was convicted after a jury trial in Superior Court, Kennebec County, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1978 & Supp.1979-80).”
State v. Adams, 457 A.2d 416 (Me. 1983).
· cites it 5× “Indeed, the statute originally expressly provided (see 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312, 1964 revised edition): The court may admit evidence of the percentage by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood at the time alleged, as shown by a chemical analysis of his breath, blood or urine.”
Powell v. Sec'y of State, 614 A.2d 1303 (Me. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Such a probable cause determination comports with 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312, the implied consent statute, requiring probable cause before a blood-alcohol test may be administered.”
State v. West, 416 A.2d 5 (Me. 1980).
· cites it 4× “(Paragraph A of subsection 10 of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1978).) 1 On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial justice erred in refusing to give the jury five “instructions” she requested.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(1) — 10 cases
State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489 (Me. 1985).
“Defendant argues that even if the involuntary blood test administered in this case satisfies constitutional requirements, the results of that test must be excluded from evidence 3 because the taking of defendant’s blood after he had refused a blood test violates Maine’s implied…”
State v. McConvey, 459 A.2d 562 (Me. 1983).
“We address the defendant’s contentions that (1) his second trial was barred by principles of double jeopardy and that (2) the presiding justice erred in admitting, as part of the State’s rebuttal, the blood-alcohol test results allegedly obtained in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. §…”
State v. Adams, 457 A.2d 416 (Me. 1983).
“Indeed, the statute originally expressly provided (see 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312, 1964 revised edition): The court may admit evidence of the percentage by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood at the time alleged, as shown by a chemical analysis of his breath, blood or urine.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(10) — 12 cases
State v. Plante, 417 A.2d 991 (Me. 1980).
“On September 21, 1979, defendant William Plante was convicted after a jury trial in Superior Court, Kennebec County, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1978 & Supp.1979-80).”
State v. West, 416 A.2d 5 (Me. 1980).
“(Paragraph A of subsection 10 of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1978).) 1 On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial justice erred in refusing to give the jury five “instructions” she requested.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(10)(A) — 6 cases
State v. West, 416 A.2d 5 (Me. 1980).
“(Paragraph A of subsection 10 of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1978).) 1 On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial justice erred in refusing to give the jury five “instructions” she requested.”
State v. Plante, 417 A.2d 991 (Me. 1980).
“On September 21, 1979, defendant William Plante was convicted after a jury trial in Superior Court, Kennebec County, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1978 & Supp.1979-80).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(10)(B) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(11)(B) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(11)(D) — 4 cases
State v. Roche, 681 A.2d 472 (Me. 1996).
“) following a jury trial that resulted in a verdict of not guilty on- one count of manslaughter and guilty on one count of operating under the influence (“OUI”) in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1992). 1 The jury considered as part of the evidence relating to the OUI charge…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(2) — 9 cases
State v. Adams, 457 A.2d 416 (Me. 1983).
“Indeed, the statute originally expressly provided (see 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312, 1964 revised edition): The court may admit evidence of the percentage by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood at the time alleged, as shown by a chemical analysis of his breath, blood or urine.”
State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489 (Me. 1985).
“Defendant argues that even if the involuntary blood test administered in this case satisfies constitutional requirements, the results of that test must be excluded from evidence 3 because the taking of defendant’s blood after he had refused a blood test violates Maine’s implied…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(4) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(5) — 4 cases
State v. Carter, 443 A.2d 958 (Me. 1982).
“§ 203 (two counts), and operating under the influence, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (a third count). Seasonably, but unsuccessfully, the Defendant moved to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test on the ground that the test was administered in violation of 29 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(5)(A) — 6 cases
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(5)(C) — 2 cases
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(6) — 12 cases
State v. McConvey, 459 A.2d 562 (Me. 1983).
“We address the defendant’s contentions that (1) his second trial was barred by principles of double jeopardy and that (2) the presiding justice erred in admitting, as part of the State’s rebuttal, the blood-alcohol test results allegedly obtained in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. §…”
State v. Pickering, 462 A.2d 1151 (Me. 1983).
“29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (Supp.1982-1983). Confronted on this Defendant's appeal with a challenge to the law's constitutionality, today's majority mount their defense to the duplicative aspects of this statute on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v.”
State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489 (Me. 1985).
“Defendant argues that even if the involuntary blood test administered in this case satisfies constitutional requirements, the results of that test must be excluded from evidence 3 because the taking of defendant’s blood after he had refused a blood test violates Maine’s implied…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(7) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(8) — 24 cases
State v. Pineau, 491 A.2d 1165 (Me. 1985).
“We hold, on the facts of this case, the defendant’s conduct cannot be deemed a “failure to comply” with 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (Supp.1983-1984) 3 for inculpatory evidentiary purposes, and therefore, the court’s instructions were erroneous.”
State v. Baker, 502 A.2d 489 (Me. 1985).
“Defendant argues that even if the involuntary blood test administered in this case satisfies constitutional requirements, the results of that test must be excluded from evidence 3 because the taking of defendant’s blood after he had refused a blood test violates Maine’s implied…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(B) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29, § 1312(l) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.