Laprel v. Going

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Salisbury

    173 A.3d 146 (Me. 2017)

    • The court did not err or abuse its discretion in quashing Salisbury's subpoena of the assistant district attorney, who had no relevant evidence to provide, see M.R. Evid. 401, 402 ; M.R.U. Crim. P. 17 ; State v. Watson, 1999 ME 41, ¶ 5, 726 A.2d 214 ;• The judge was properly appointed, seeLaprel v. Going, 2014 ME 84, ¶¶ 15–20, 96 A.3d 67 ;• The court did not abuse its discretion in reasonably limiting the duration of Salisbury's opening argument, cf.State v. Liberty, 498 A.2d 257, 260 (Me. 1985) ;

  2. In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Jones

    2017 Me. 125 (Me. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    We consider the argument, however, to the extent that he asserts the order is "void" for lack of statutory authority pursuant to section 309. SeeEstate of Reed , 2016 ME 90, ¶ 6, 142 A.3d 578 ("The Probate Court is a statutory court of limited jurisdiction and its actions are void unless taken pursuant to statutory authority." (quotation marks omitted)); Laprel v. Going , 2014 ME 84, ¶ 15, 96 A.3d 67. Kenneth also argues that the court was barred by principles of res judicata from creating the successor supplemental needs trust because it had already approved the first trust.

  3. In re Chamberlain

    2015 Me. 76 (Me. 2015)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the standard of proof in a statute passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional

    Regarding each of his arguments, Chamberlain contends that section 5–204(d) is unconstitutional on its face. Although in the absence of a transcript of the proceedings, we ordinarily assume that the transcript would support all factual findings, see Laprel v. Going, 2014 ME 84, ¶ 2, 96 A.3d 67, without a complete record, we will not address an argument that a statute is unconstitutional as applied, see McGee v. Sec'y of State, 2006 ME 50, ¶ 18, 896 A.2d 933 (stating, when the factual record was inadequate for us to consider a constitutional challenge to a statute as applied, that we would review only whether the statute was facially unconstitutional). [¶ 8] When we address a facial constitutional challenge, the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people of Maine are entitled to the deference of the courts.