 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Carmichael v. State, Docket: Som-05-307 & Cum-06-102,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As Blakely rule did not affect accuracy of guilt phase, it was not "watershed rule of criminal procedure" and thus did not have retroactive effect under Teague. Therefore, inmate's post-conviction petition, though filed two months after Blakely decision, was properly dismissed as time-barred under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 2128(5) (2006).
|
|||||
| State v. Dion, Docket: And-06-591,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the totality of the factors supported the conclusion that defendant, who was not given a Miranda warning, was not in police custody, where defendant talked to the police on his front porch and was told that he could do as he wished, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the incriminating statements.
|
|||||
| State v. Felch, Docket: Aro-06-494,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motions to dismiss charges of violations of condition of release, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1092(1)(A), was proper because defendant failed to seek available remedies for relief for allegedly unreasonable bail conditions. Defendant therefore failed to preserve his arguments by objection or appeal.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Adam, CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-06-226,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, July 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Tibbetts, CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-07-381,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, July 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Town of Sanford v. Sanford Air, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-07-12,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, July 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gelder v. Cote, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-07-116,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, July 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jandreau v. State, Docket No. CUM-CV-07-004,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, July 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moore v. Abbott, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-06-38,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, July 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
