Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abolishing diversity (1)
- Accrual (1)
- Adr (1)
- Alternative dispute resolution (1)
- Citizen enforcement (1)
-
- Civil Jury Trials (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Conservation (1)
- Conservation easement (1)
- Conservation easement enforcement (1)
- Continuing negligent treatment doctrine (1)
- Cost (1)
- Daubert (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Diversity jurisdiction (1)
- Expert witness (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal rules of evidence (1)
- Fee (1)
- Forensic evidence (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Land trusts (1)
- MHSA (1)
- Maine Constitution (1)
- Maine Health Security Act (1)
- Marek v. Chesney (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Medical malpractice (1)
- Multiple acts (1)
- Public benefit (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Scientific Evidence And Forensic Science Since Daubert: Maine Decides To Sit Out On The Dance, Thomas L. Bohan
Scientific Evidence And Forensic Science Since Daubert: Maine Decides To Sit Out On The Dance, Thomas L. Bohan
Maine Law Review
In 1993, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that with the federal adoption of statutory rules of evidence in 1975, the common law rule for determining admissibility of scientific testimony was superseded, and that thenceforth admissibility of scientific testimony was to be determined solely by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Rule 702). The Frye standard had been adopted in one form or another by most of the federal circuits and by many of the state courts during the 70 years preceding Daubert. Referred to as the “general acceptance” standard, the Frye standard--although adopted in a variety of forms--had …
Court-Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution In Maine, Howard H. Dana Jr.
Court-Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution In Maine, Howard H. Dana Jr.
Maine Law Review
With these words of prophecy the Commission to Study the Future of Maine's Courts launched its discussion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Although conceding that “the adversary process ... has served the people of the state well” and acknowledging that “the state must continue to provide a forum for forceful advocacy that produces a definite and binding judicial decision” the Commission asked the Maine judicial and legislative branches to embrace ADR. For the last dozen years, the Author has been the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC's) liaison to its ADR Planning and Implementation Committee and Chair of the Court's Advisory Committee …
Protecting The Public Benefit: Crafting Precedent For Citizen Enforcement Of Conservation Easements, Sean P. Ociepka
Protecting The Public Benefit: Crafting Precedent For Citizen Enforcement Of Conservation Easements, Sean P. Ociepka
Maine Law Review
In fiscal year 2004, Wal-Mart added 139 new discount stores, supercenters, and “neighborhood markets” to its already significant chain of stores across the United States. Wal-Mart developers submit their proposals to governing town bodies all over the country with the promise that the $20 million construction of a 200,000 square foot store will create 500 new jobs for the local economy, will have a payroll of over $12 million, will increase the tax base of the area, and will provide convenient, affordable shopping for consumers. For these reasons, the big box stores are a hard offer for town planners to …
The Case For Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: The Undeveloped Arguments, From The Race To The Bottom To The Substitution Effect, David Crump
Maine Law Review
Diversity jurisdiction is an idea whose time has come--and gone. In its present form, it serves its alleged purpose so inconsistently that its benefits are minimal, if they exist at all. And the costs that it imposes are significant. The traditional arguments for and against diversity are well known, but the traditional arguments against it actually understate its disadvantages. Therefore, the purpose of this Article is to construct the arguments against diversity that traditional scholarship has left underdeveloped. These include the proposition that today, in the twenty-first century, there are more reasons than ever to authorize diversity jurisdiction more selectively. …
Tipping The Scales?: Maine Adopts The Continuing Negligent Treatment Doctrine In Baker V. Farrand, Michael P. Beers
Tipping The Scales?: Maine Adopts The Continuing Negligent Treatment Doctrine In Baker V. Farrand, Michael P. Beers
Maine Law Review
In Baker v. Farrand, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that for a series of related negligent acts or omissions committed by a health care provider or practitioner, a single cause of action “accrues” under the Maine Health Security Act (hereinafter MHSA) on the date of the last act or omission that contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. Hence, in situations where a physician provides continuing negligent treatment to a patient in which each and every one of the physician’s actions are negligent, the MHSA’s three-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the …
A Modern Look At The Right To A Civil Jury Trial Under The Maine Constitution, Carolyn A. Liegner
A Modern Look At The Right To A Civil Jury Trial Under The Maine Constitution, Carolyn A. Liegner
Maine Law Review
The right to a civil jury trial is a cornerstone of the American legal system. The Maine Constitution promises an even broader right to a civil jury trial than is offered by the federal Constitution and many other states. Article I, Section 20 states: “In all civil suits, and in all controversies concerning property, the parties shall have a right to a trial by jury, except in cases where it has heretofore been otherwise practiced.” The exception in the provision has been the subject of multiple interpretations by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, since the …
The Difficulties Of Encouraging Cooperation In A Zero-Sum Game, Jacob R. Kreutzer
The Difficulties Of Encouraging Cooperation In A Zero-Sum Game, Jacob R. Kreutzer
Maine Law Review
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally provide only the “rules of the road” on which litigation is conducted. However, in some areas the Rules step outside of this role and attempt to overtly encourage cooperation. One such rule is Rule 68, which allows a defendant to make an offer of judgment to the plaintiff, and provides that if the plaintiff refuses and subsequently wins less money than the defendant offered, the plaintiff must cover the defendant’s costs. Rule 68 was launched into prominence when the Supreme Court ruled, in Marek v. Chesney that a Rule 68 offer could negate …