February 9, 2010, at Portland: 9:45 AM
1. And-09-255 Donald Godsoe v. Elizabeth Godsoe et al.
Attorneys: Scott Giese and Robert L. Guillory, Jonathan M. Davis, Carlos Diaz
On appeal by Donald Godsoe
Donald Godsoe appeals from two summary judgments entered in the District Court in favor of Elizabeth Godsoe and Peter Wiers. Donald argues that the court erred in granting Elizabeth and Wiers’s motions for summary judgment: (1) on the grounds of res judicata because a triable issue of fact remained as to whether Elizabeth and Wiers committed fraud concerning the paternity of Elizabeth's son; and (2) on the grounds of collateral estoppel because the court’s decision constituted gender discrimination in violation of the equal protection clauses of the United States and Maine constitutions.
February 9, 2010, at Portland: 10:45 AM
2. Ken-09-346 Todd R. Rich v. Maine Department of Marine Resources
Attorneys: Nicholas H. Walsh and Mark A. Randlett
On appeal by Todd Rich
Todd R. Rich appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court upholding a decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Marine Resources suspending Rich’s lobster and crab fishing license for a period of three years. Rich argues that the Commissioner erred in determining that 12 M.R.S. § 6402 required the suspension because that statute at the time applied only to a “conviction” of molesting lobster gear, and he was found to have committed a civil violation. Rich additionally argues that the suspension was a violation of his due process rights.
February 9, 2010, at Portland: 11:30 AM
3. Yor-08-247 State of Maine v. Huy Van Nguyen
Attorneys: Donald W. Macomber and Leonard I. Sharon
On appeal by Huy Van Nguyen
Huy Van Nguyen appeals from a judgment of conviction for intentional and knowing murder, 17 A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A) (2008), entered in the Superior Court following a jury trial. Nguyen contends that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding a unanimous verdict, in admitting certain impeachment evidence at trial, and in denying his motion for mistrial based on statements made by the State during its closing argument.
February 9, 2010, at Portland: 1:00 PM
4. Cum-09-387 Paul F. Rainey et al. v. Edward A. Langen et al.
Attorneys: Daniel G. Kagan and James M. Bowie, Hillary J. Bouchard
On appeal by Paul and Patricia Rainey
Paul F. Rainey appeals from a partial summary judgment entered in the Superior Court in favor of Domino’s Pizza, LLC (Domino’s) on Rainey’s claims for vicarious liability and negligence. Rainey contends that the summary judgment record compels a conclusion that Domino’s is vicariously liable for injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident, or, alternatively, that disputed issues of material fact remain regarding Domino’s vicarious liability.
February 9, 2010, at Portland: 1:45 PM
5. Kno-09-374 State of Maine v. Salvador Poblete
Attorneys: Geoffrey Rushlau and Steven C. Peterson
On appeal by Salvador Poblete
Salvador T. Poblete appeals from a judgment of conviction of gross sexual assault (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(2)(H) (2008), entered in the Superior Court following a jury trial. Poblete contends that the court erred in denying, in part, his motion to suppress statements he made to the police. Poblete also argues that: (1) inadequacies in the translation services provided by his court-appointed interpreters deprived him of a fair trial; and (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction.
February 9, 2010, at Portland: 1:45 PM
5. WCB-09-392 Lynn Kobus v. Maine Medical Center
Attorneys: James J. MacAdam, Nathan A. Jury, David E. Hirtle and Kevin M. Gillis
********SETTLED 2-4-10*********
On appeal by Employee
Lynn Kobus appeals from a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer denying her petition for payment of medical and related services. The hearing officer determined that Kobus did not meet her burden of proving that certain medical treatment was compensable because she did not attach the relevant medical bills to the petition or introduce them into evidence at the hearing. Kobus contends that (1) the Workers’ Compensation Act does not require that bills be attached to the pleading and that Me. W.C.B. Rule, ch. 12 § 2, which does require bills to be attached, is inconsistent with the Act; (2) at issue was whether the treatment itself was reasonable and proper pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 206 (2009), not whether the cost of the treatment was reasonable and proper; and (3) Maine Medical Center had waived the issue by failing to raise it until closing argument and, in any event, had the bills in its possession.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 9:00 AM
1. And-09-422 Estate of Shannon Fortier et al. v. City of Lewiston et al.
Attorneys: Randall E. Smith, Jamie R. Lebovitz, E. Chris L'Hommedieu and Edward R. Benjamin Jr. and Christopher C. Taub and Robert H. Furbish
On appeal by the City of Lewiston
The City of Lewiston appeals from a decision of the Superior Court denying its motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death suit brought by the estates of three Lewiston High School students who died in a 2006 plane crash while attending an Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps summer program sponsored by the school. The City argues that it is immune from suit pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1) (2009), and also because its employee supervising the summer program was performing a discretionary function, see 14 M.R.S. § 8104 B(3) (2009). The Estates argue that the City is not immune from suit because the allegedly negligent acts asserted in the complaint involved the City’s use of an aircraft within the meaning of 14 M.R.S. § 8104 A(1)(D) (2009), and because the City’s employee was not performing a discretionary function.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 9:45 AM
2. Yor-09-365 State of Maine v. Geoffrey Reese
Attorneys: Mark W. Lawrence, Justina A. McGettigan, Anne Marie Pazar and Robert Andrews
On appeal by Geoffrey Reese
Geoffrey Reese appeals from a judgment of conviction of elevated aggravated assault, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, entered in the Superior Court upon a finding of guilty by a jury. Reese has also received leave to appeal his sentence. He argues that the court misapplied principle and abused its discretion in employing the three-step sentencing process pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C (2009). He also argues that the court erred or abused its discretion in (1) denying his motion to suppress certain statements he made to detectives; (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that was supported by an invalid affidavit; (2) denying his motion to suppress items seized pursuant to a search warrant when no probable cause affidavit was filed in court; (3) admitting certain expert testimony that the State had not disclosed in discovery; and (4) failing to provide a jury instruction for a lesser included offense.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 10:30 AM
3. Lin-09-351 Estate of Eldon C. Hunt
Attorneys: Stephen E.F. Langsdorf, Jerrol A. Crouter, Joel F. Bowie, Frank K.N. Chowdry, Hylie A. West and James A. Hopkinson
On appeal by Forrest Hunt
Forrest C. Hunt appeals from an order of the Lincoln County Probate Court construing and reforming Article 2, Section 2 of his father’s will, which governed the distribution of property in Newcastle, to conform the devises with local zoning ordinances. On appeal, Forrest argues that (1) because the devises in the will violate local zoning ordinances, they fail as a matter of law and the property therefore must be distributed as part of the residuary trust pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. § 2-606 (2009); (2) the Probate Court exceeded its authority to construe and reform the will; (3) the court improperly admitted expert testimony for the purpose of construction; and (4) the record lacked sufficient evidence to support the court’s order.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 11:15 AM
4. Ken-09-357 State of Maine v. Deane Tracy
Attorneys: Leanne Robbin and Sherry Tash
On appeal by Deane Tracy
Deane Tracy appeals from a judgment of conviction of forgery (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 703(1)(A) (2009), entered in the Superior Court after a non-jury trial. Tracy was alleged to have presented a false bill of sale to the District Court in defending against a small claim seeking $2500 owed on the sale of a car. Tracy makes four arguments: (1) that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever his trial from his wife’s trial on an identical charge, (2) that the court improperly admitted evidence of communications and conduct arising at small claims mediation, (3) that the court abused its discretion in excluding statements of Tracy’s wife based on the marital privilege, and (4) that the evidence was insufficient to establish Tracy’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 1:00 PM
5. Fed-09-415 Stephen Darney et al. v. Dragon Products Company LLC
Attorneys: Peggy L. McGehee and Eric J. Wycoff, Peter W. Culley
On questions certified by the United States District Court for the District of Maine
This case has been certified by the United States District Court for the District of Maine pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 25, as authorized by 4. M.R.S. § 57 (2008), with two determinative questions of state law for review: (1) Does Maine recognize a cause of action for trespass based on intangible invasions of dust and vibrations; and (2) if so, does that cause of action require proof of actual and substantial damages. This certification arises from the Darneys’ initial complaint, alleging that the waste products and vibrations emitted by Dragon Products’ cement facility constitute common law trespass on their property. Dragon Products argues that the law in Maine does not recognize trespass actions for intangible invasions to property, either statutorily or at common law.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 1:45 PM
6. BEP-09-467 Friends of Lincoln Lakes et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection
Attorneys: Lynne Williams and Juliet T. Browne, Scott D. Anderson, Gordon R. Smith, Margaret Bensinger, Amy Mills
On appeal by Friends of Lincoln Lakes
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes and certain individuals (collectively, “FOLL”) appeal, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 346(4) (2009), from a decision of the Board of Environmental Protection which affirmed an order of the Department of Environmental Protection approving the issuance of permits to Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC, to construct a wind energy generation facility. FOLL argues that: (1) the Board’s determination that Evergreen met applicable licensing criteria with respect to noise is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record; (2) the Board’s determination that Evergreen demonstrated that the proposed project would minimize the impact to wildlife habitats is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record; (3) 38 M.R.S. § 346(4), concerning the taking of appeals from orders or decisions of the Board regarding applications for expedited wind energy development directly to this Court, is unconstitutional; and (4) 38 M.R.S. § 344(2-A)(A)(1) (2009), precluding the Board from being asked to assume jurisdiction of expedited wind energy development permitting applications, is unconstitutional.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 2:30 PM
7. Joan M. Morin v. Maine Education Association
Attorneys: Walter McKee, James Billings and Jonathan Beal Sr., David Webbert, Elizabeth Burnett and Bruce Smith and Melissa Hewey
On appeal by Maine Education Association
CASE CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 14, 2010
The Maine Education Association appeals from an order entered in the Superior Court granting Joan M. Morin’s motion to disqualify two attorneys from representing the Association in connection with Morin's work discrimination complaint. The Association argues that the court erred in granting the motion to disqualify both because the representation was permitted by the Maine Bar Rules, and because the court's order is not supported by sufficient record evidence. The Association also argues that the court erred in excluding expert testimony as to the application of ethical standards, and in denying its motion requesting further findings of fact.
February 10, 2010, at Portland: 3:15 PM
LAW SCHOOL PRIZE ARGUMENT
