Uncategorized

Public prescriptive easements AGAIN?

Practice area:

The Law Court has addressed the issue of public prescriptive easements again in Cedar Beach/Cedar Island Supporters, Inc., et al. v. Gables Real Estate LLC, 2016 ME 114.  As with its earlier decision in the Goose Rocks case (Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 2014 ME 139, P18) – upon which we have blogged multiple times (Goose Rock mystery, Goose Rocks again, Back in the saddle, More about agency deference; looming arguments; and youtube, Goose Rocks, muskets and takings law, Goose Rocks Response, Goose Rocks redux – hold the phone!) the decision in Cedar Beach shows a sensitivity to ensuring that owners of land used by the public are not easily deemed to have lost their right to stop that access through longstanding public use.

Here, members of the public

What’s certifiable?

Practice area:

It may be the height of summer vacation time, but the Law Court and First Circuit continue to issue decisions, some of note.  Here’s one of interest, in which Judge Lynch parted ways with the reasoning of the majority (Judge Lipez, joined by CJ Howard):  Ms. S. v. Regional School Unit 72, No. 15-1487 (1st Cir. July 15, 2016).

The underlying subject matter is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its interface with a Maine regulation regarding the timing for seeking a due process hearing under IDEA.  But the discussion is all about Maine procedural requirements for rulemaking under the Maine Administrative Procedure Act.

I will spare you the majority’s long discussion of its interpretation (the ruling is a remand for the district court to try again to figure out the answer to the ultimate question whether the rule passed muster or is invalid.)  I also won’t go into the labrynthian and confusing nature of the

SJC appellate seminar (III)

Practice area:

As you can see, we have a new format/platform. Let’s hope it’s easier to use that the last one.  As always, all comments welcome, cconnors@pierceatwood.com.  Now let’s finish discussing the SJC’s appellate seminar.

We had just finished up with Justices Alexander and Humphrey on jurisdictional issues. Next, Justice Mead spoke about Rules 5-7 on the brief and appendix structure.  After observing that the people attending probably weren’t the offenders, Justice Mead stated that sometimes it appears that attorneys hand off appeals to a junior associate or secretary, who in turn calls the clerk’s office for questions answered in the rules.  If you are the supervising attorney, he said, then supervise.  You should know the rules, and the buck stops with you.

Regarding Rule 9(a) and the standard of review, Justice Mead said this is not the portion of the brief to exercise your advocacy skills. Just set out the standard.

Do not seek to enlarge your page limit simultaneously with filing an