March 17, 2026
January/February 2026 Law Court Roundup
Authors:
Practice area:
While we will write lengthier posts for cases that merit a broader discussion, as we did in our last post with respect to the Xamplas decision, we also will write brief updates for notable cases issued recently. Here goes for Law Court decisions issued in January and February 2026:
- Jellison v. Jellison, 2026 ME 3, 349 A.3d 102: This is an interesting case addressing the relationship between a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a final judgment and an appeal of that same judgment. Here, the Rule 60(b) movant brought his motion after the Law Court already had considered and ruled on the same (or at least similar) issues. The Law Court held that the Rule 60(b) motion should have been denied because it was inconsistent with the Law Court’s prior ruling affirming the same underlying judgment. Note the lengthy footnote on page 6 discussing although not deciding the unsettled question under Maine law as to whether judicial errors of law may serve as a basis for a Rule 60(b) motion.
- Hogan v. Kennebec Valley Community College, 2026 ME 5, –A.3d–: This case involves an individual who challenged her dismissal from her community college program pursuant to Rule 80B (a Maine rule of civil procedure governing review of governmental actions), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal statute creating a cause of action for individuals deprived of their civil rights under color of state law), and 5 M.R.S. § 4601 (a Maine statute recognizing a right to freedom from discrimination in education). At interest for us is the Law Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim failed under the “exclusivity rule,” a judicial doctrine which provides that Rule 80B is the exclusive remedy for a party seeking to appeal a governmental action (unless the court concludes an 80B appeal would be inadequate and that restricting the party to 80B review would cause irreparable injury). The Law Court noted the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Reed, 604 U.S. 168 (2025), in which the Court concluded that Alabama could not require exhaustion of state administrative remedies before the plaintiffs could pursue a § 1983 action. The Law Court thus raised the question of whether the exclusivity rule remains a viable bar to Section 1983 claims joined to administrative appeals as independent claims. However, the Supreme Court’s holding in Williams was narrow—in that case, the plaintiffs claimed the state agency had unlawfully delayed the administrative process, and the Court noted the “catch-22” that would exist if the plaintiffs were required to exhaust that administrative process prior to filing suit under Section 1983. Because the case before the Law Court did not fall into this narrow category of cases addressed in Williams, the Law Court decided to adhere to its past precedent applying the exclusivity rule to Section 1983 claims. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court addresses this issue in the future.
- State v. Follette, 2026 ME 7, –A.3d–: We will not be blogging much about criminal law, but this case raises one of our favorite issues: interlocutory appeals and exceptions to the final judgment rule. Here, a criminal defendant brought a pre-trial motion to dismiss arguing that the State’s prosecution violated the statute of limitations or, if it did not, violated the defendant’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The Superior Court denied the motion and the defendant appealed immediately before the case went to trial and, thus, on an interlocutory basis. The Law Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order, holding that, notwithstanding the weighty and constitutional issues raised by the motion, the defendant nevertheless was required to proceed to trial and to a final adverse judgment before appealing pre-trial rulings. That the defendant would be required to go through the rigors of a criminal trial simply was not good enough to trigger any of the claimed exceptions to the final judgment rule (judicial economy, death knell, or collateral order). This is another example of the Law Court strictly policing the final judgment rule.
- Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor School Board, 2026 ME 11, –A.3d–: This case concerns the relationship between the so-called “ancient writs” abolished via the adoption of Rule 81 in 1967 and challenges to municipal action under Rule 80B. Rule 80B does not create a right to appeal. Per the rule itself, such authorization arises only from “statute” or to the extent “otherwise available by law.” The latter phrase, although generic, sweeps in appeals previously available under the now-abolished common law writs. Minerich thus discusses whether the appeal in that case could proceed because it would have been available under the common law writs. The case builds on the Law Court’s 2024 discussion of these issues in 15 Langsford Owner LLC v. Town of Kennebunkport, 2024 ME 79, 327 A.3d 1093.
If you saw something else notable from the Law Court in January or February, drop us a line and let us know.
