 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alexander v. Mitchell, Docket: Pen-06-611,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A contractor, on entering into a contract to plow a town's roads, did not undertake a duty to protect members of the road-using public from ice and snow. Therefore, a widower's negligence suit against the contractor, based on his wife's death in an auto accident on a slippery road, was properly dismissed on the contractor's summary judgment motion.
|
|||||
| Allen v. Allen, Docket: Oxf-06-739,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As over three years elapsed since entry of child support order, and under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A, § 2005, award calculated under guidelines in prior proceeding was proper amount for subsequent order modifying support, court erred by maintaining upward deviation, as new award significantly exceeded prior award that included that deviation.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Roberts, Docket: Was-06-710,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although trial court's announcement of findings and conclusions from bench did not trigger Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b) because findings had not been made for purposes of the rule, correct response to wife's motion for additional findings and conclusions was to dismiss motion as premature and allow wife to file a proper motion after judgment was entered.
|
|||||
| State v. Bilynsky, Docket: Sag-06-389,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Warrantless entry of defendant's barn to conduct a protective sweep was justified by both probable cause and exigent circumstances, as informants told officers they had seen defendant cook methamphetamine there, an officer smelled fumes associated with the manufacturing process, and he knew of the danger posed by that process.
|
|||||
| State v. Cormier, Docket: Cum-05-354,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admitting results of defendant's blood tests, under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, § 2522(3) (2006), did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the statute was designed to admit them only if other evidence, gathered before, during, or after administering the tests, would inevitably have prompted them had police not been dealing with an emergency.
|
|||||
| State v. Newbert, Docket: Pis-06-606,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion under Me. R. Crim. P. 11A in denying defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as a year had elapsed since entry of the plea, the trial court found that the State's case would be severely prejudiced, and defendant did not explain the reasons for his belated assertion of innocence.
|
|||||
| State v. Rabon, Docket: Oxf-05-518,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence obtained at defendants' residence with a search warrant was inadmissible, under Me. Const. art. I, § 5, because (1) police had no probable cause to enter it while awaiting the warrant, and (2) the warrant affidavit did not show probable cause without information from the unlawful entry, so no warrant or exclusionary rule exception applied.
|
|||||
| Citizens Communs. Co. v. AG, Docket: Ken-07-161,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order requiring disclosure of documents related to settlement of environmental case under Maine Freedom of Access Act, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, §§ 401-411, was proper because there was no settlement negotiation privilege. Further, there was no common interest which would have prevented disclosure on basis of attorney-client privilege.
|
|||||
| State v. Stewart, Docket: Lin-06-651,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in instructing the jury because aggravated assault and assault were not lesser-included offenses of elevated aggravated assault (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 208-B(1)(B)) where proof that defendant acted with depraved indifference did not necessarily establish that defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
|
|||||
| Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Spaulding, Docket: Cum-06-737,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for a mortgage company in a foreclosure action was improper because, inter alia, trial court incorrectly concluded that the statute of frauds, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 51(5), barred the owners' defense. Owners produced multiple writings that could have placed loan modification agreement outside the statute of frauds.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
