This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners in Owls Head, Maine, where the Weinsteins claimed ownership of a portion of waterfront land known as Cliff Street through adverse possession, despite the Hurlberts holding record title. The trial court ruled in favor of the Weinsteins, finding that their and their predecessors' maintenance of the land satisfied the elements of adverse possession. On appeal, the court vacated the judgment, holding that the Weinsteins failed to prove the required elements of hostile and notorious use. The reasoning centered on the fact that the activities, primarily seasonal lawn mowing and occasional planting, were insufficient to notify the record owners of an antagonistic claim, consistent with the policy disfavoring adverse possession and local traditions regarding open land use.
In Gray v. TD Bank, the plaintiff sued the bank after losing a probate court case over ownership of funds in a joint checking account, claiming the bank failed to retain records proving his joint ownership, leading to claims of breach of contract, negligence, and punitive damages. The court affirmed dismissal of the contract and punitive damages claims but allowed the negligence claim to proceed. It reasoned that collateral estoppel prevented relitigation of the account ownership issue central to the contract claim, as it had been fully litigated in probate court, but the negligence claim raised separate questions about the bank's record-keeping duties that were not previously decided. Punitive damages were not supported by the alleged conduct.
The case involved Rogers Harrell's appeal from his conviction for domestic violence assault, where the trial court imposed a seven-month jail sentence and a $300 fine, believing the fine to be mandatory under the statute. The court decided to vacate the fine, agreeing with Harrell and the State that the domestic violence assault statute does not incorporate the mandatory minimum fine from the simple assault statute. The core reasoning was that the domestic-violence-assault statute is ambiguous regarding penalties and does not prescribe a specific fine, so the rule of lenity requires interpreting it to not carry a mandatory minimum fine, allowing the court to consider the offender's financial capacity.
Timothy Daniels sued his former employers, Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility and North Country Associates, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Maine Human Rights Act after he suffered work-related shoulder injuries, requested light-duty accommodations, filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, and was later disciplined and terminated. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated that judgment. The court held that the summary judgment record presented genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the employers' performance criticisms, discipline, and termination decisions were motivated by Daniels's disability or his protected activity of filing the discrimination complaint, including evidence of an email directing close monitoring because of the lawsuit and questions about the involvement of North Country personnel.
The case concerned a land use dispute over Pike Industries' operation and proposed expansion of a quarry in Westbrook, including whether it had grandfathered rights under successive zoning ordinances and challenges to permits for blasting and related activities. After the Zoning Board of Appeals ruled against grandfathered rights and the Superior Court affirmed that decision in Pike's Rule 80B appeal, Pike, the City, and IDEXX negotiated a consent decree that treated quarrying as a permitted grandfathered use subject to performance standards, which the court approved as a final judgment resolving equitable claims and the City's counterclaim. The Law Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings, on the grounds that the consent decree improperly functioned as contract zoning or an amendment to the zoning ordinance without compliance with required municipal procedures and public processes.
This case involves a post-divorce dispute between Andrew Desmond, a U.S. Marine stationed in Japan, and his former wife Abby over arranging an eight-week summer visit for their son with his father following a prior court order for meaningful contact. After multiple case management conferences, the District Court determined that the visit could not occur due to delays in required medical paperwork and the father's duty schedule, and it terminated the guardian ad litem's services. Andrew appealed, arguing errors in the court's handling of the visit arrangements and GAL dismissal. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order, finding that reasonable efforts had been made by the court and mother to facilitate the visit, that the father had declined alternatives, and that the court acted within its discretion in considering financial factors when ending the GAL appointment under 19-A M.R.S. § 1507.
