Source: https://www.maineappeals.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:48:03+00:00

Document:
We have previously blogged – many times- on the question when one must file a cross-appeal to assert alternative grounds to support a judgment: Cross-Appeals again; Alternate grounds support a judgment? Cross-Appeal!; New rules; When in doubt, cross it out; Follow up.
The Law Court recently issued a decision that we hope definitively answers this question as never: Ageoreow v. Weisberg, 2018 ME 140.
Takings law – exhausted or just exhausting?
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari this term to re-consider the ripeness requirement for a claim for just compensation, first articulated in in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). Knick v. Town of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647. Interestingly, the Court decided to go right to the jugular, deciding whether the ripeness rule should be abrogated entirely, instead of nibbling at the edges to decide whether the rule applied to physical/facial takings.
Brew your own beer – right in your tummy!
A suspiciously high number of OUI appeals have always appeared on the October high school argument list, presumably and admirably to bring home to impressionable teenagers the dangers of drinking and driving. This OUI appeal revolves around a defense I’ve never heard of before: “Auto-immune brewery” or “Gut fermentation” syndrome.
According to the briefing, the defendant blew a whopping .31 on the Intoxilyzer. The defense wanted to submit expert testimony that it was possible that, unbeknownst to the defendant, his own gut was spontaneously producing alcohol.
If you take off your jacket on your front porch while a police officer is in your driveway following up on a suspected motor vehicle violation, does that mean the police can search that jacket if you’re wearing a sleeveless blouse underneath and the temperature is 34 degrees? Four SJC Justices upheld the search; three dissented. State v. Paganini, 2018 ME 129.
Two seemingly unrelated recent decisions, one in the First Circuit and the other by the Law Court, consider the potential inadequacies of our current criminal justice system to address current social issues: (1) U.S. v. Sirois, No. 17-1797 and (2) State of Maine v. J.R., 2018 ME.
In Sirois, after release from federal custody following a drug trafficking conviction, the defendant failed three drug tests and pleaded guilty to felony drug possession in state court. The district court then found the conduct violated his conditions of supervised release and revoked that release, sending him to prison for two years. On appeal, the defendant argued that because his drug addiction is a disease, sentencing him to imprisonment for manifesting a condition of his disease was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Is the Hotel California covered in lead paint?
It may be the summer doldrums in terms of issuing decision, but an interesting petition for cert was filed last week that may have a decent chance of being granted. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. and NL Industries, Inc. v. People of California.
It certainly has firepower behind it, with Paul Clement as Counsel of Record, along with a host of others from Kirkland & Ellis and Reed Smith. It also involves substantial $$ – hundreds of millions of dollars. And it relates to an issue that I worked on years ago with a then-partner at PA named William Kayatta, now of the First Circuit: to what extent can companies who long ago manufactured lead pigment or paint or their successors be held liable now in public nuisance for lead paint on buildings today? The folks at Jones Day also filed a petition for cert in the same case. Sherwin-Williams Company v. People of California.
The First Amendment is different.
Playing catch up in our perusal of recent First Circuit and Law Court decisions, a First Circuit decision involving a defamation claim caught our eye. Sindi v. El-Moslimany, No. 16-2347. The panel were Judges Barron, Selya and Stahl. Judge Selya wrote the majority decision for himself and Judge Stahl, with Judge Barron dissenting in part. Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA, filed an amicus brief on behalf of himself.
Well, we had a little hiatus while we were sucked into a whirlpool of briefing and other activity, but things have calmed down now, and as a nice present waiting for me was Justice Alexander’s Fifth edition of Maine Appellate Practice. This edition talks about the new rules, and so if you’ve been skipping an edition or two, I’d invest in this one. All the proceeds go to Cleaves, a worthy cause, so they make nice Christmas presents, too!
Kudos to Pierce Atwood’s Jim Erwin in the affirmance of summary judgment for an employer in a whistleblower retaliation case. Theriault v. Genesis Healthcare LLC, No. 17-1717. See 26 M.R.S. § 833.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 833