Oral arguments are at the Cumberland County Courthouse in Portland unless otherwise indicated. Additional dates may be scheduled to accommodate workload.
Caution: This schedule is subject to change. The case summaries are prepared by Court staff for the convenience of the public and are not to be construed as statements of the Court.
Oral Arguments: Tuesday, April 7, 2026
at the Cumberland County Courthouse, Portland
The District Court extended an extreme risk protection order, also known as a weapons restriction order, against T. T. appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show that he posed a likelihood of foreseeable harm, as that term is defined in 34-B M.R.S. § 3862-A, given that the court's relied on hearsay from unidentified declarants and an assessment of T. by a nurse practitioner who had not met with T. or reviewed any medical records and based her assessment solely on reports from law enforcement and unidentified sources.
11:20 a.m.
SRP-25-288
State of Maine v. Joseph M. Murray
Christopher J. Coleman; James M. Mason
Topics and briefs will be posted soon
1:30 p.m.
Som-25-395
State of Maine v. Douglas Perkins
Amanda Seekins; James M. Mason
Topics and briefs will be posted soon
2:20 p.m.
And-25-426
Tammy Lasko et al. v. Almighty Waste Inc.
Peter Clifford; Jeffrey T. Edwards
Topics and briefs will be posted soon
2:20 p.m.
BCD-25-166
Bruce MacMillan et al. v. R.M. Davis, Inc.
Bruce W. Hepler; George T. Dilworth; Susan M. Weidner
Fiduciary duty of investment advisor to protect client from financial abuse
Robbery; criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon; theft; jury instruction on missing witness; use of firearm as aggravating factor in sentencing for crime that has an element that the actor was "armed with a dangerous weapon"
Montagu Reid Hankin et al. v. Sarah B. Sewall et al.
Elizabeth A. Germani; Jeffrey T. Piampiano; Oliver Mac Walton; Joseph G. Talbot; Emily A. Arvizu; Shea H. Watson
Prescriptive easements; burden of proof; treatment of undeveloped lots; treatment of two lots with common ownership; "friendly neighbor" exception to presumption of adversity; easements by estoppel; easements by deed
The District Court terminated Danielle H.'s parental rights to her child. Danielle H. appeals, arguing that
there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding of parental unfitness and that the court abused its discretion in determining that it was in the child's best interest to terminate her parental rights because the court did not adequately consider a permanency guardianship as an alternative to termination and because the guardian ad litem did not provide a reliable recommendation to the court.
3:10 p.m.
Som-22-182
State of Maine v. Nicholas W. Norris
Jason Horn; James M. Mason
Topics and summary to be announced
.
Oral Arguments: Thursday, March 5, 2026 at the Cumberland County Courthouse, Portland
Gross sexual assault; compulsion; absense of victim from courtroom during playback of 9-1-1 recording; admission of prejudicial statement; lack of remorse as factor in sentencing; consideration of other mitigating factors in sentencing
The Superior Court granted summary judgment and awarded damages to the State of Maine in its suit against Moosehead Mountain Resort that sought to enforce covenants on a ski area once owned by the state and now owned by Moosehead, to ensure that the land remained available to the public. Moosehead appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the deed to a predecessor-in-interest of Moosehead’s required that the land be maintained in a certain way; (2) a covenant can run with the land without a benefited parcel, (3) there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a certain parcel retained by the State was a benefitted parcel or whether the defense of latches applied, (4) the ambiguities in the deed regarding the covenants must be resolved in favor of the state, (5) the covenant requiring that the land be available for “public use” is reasonable, and (6) the state was not required to give notice of its interpretation of the public-use covenant before suing Moosehead.
1:30 p.m.
And-25-351
Zachary Wilson v. Elizabeth Gurney et al.
Carly R. Cosgrove; Sheldon J. Tepler; Thomas S. Marjerison
Topics & Briefs to be posted soon
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Francis and Maryann Janusz on their complaint for foreclosure against Eric Bacon. Bacon appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the parties had completed mediation, which is a statutory prerequisite to a judgment of foreclosure; and (2) Bacon received proper notice of the motion for summary judgment even though the Januszes did not mail a copy of the motion to Bacon’s address of record.
3:10 p.m.
Lin-22-85
Michael Zani et al. v. Medora Zani et al.
Laura P. Shaw; Christopher K. MacLean; Marie Mueller; George T. Dilworth; Amy K. Olfene; Andre G. Duchette
In 2018, while she was the subject of a guardianship and conservatorship, Patricia Spofford executed a will that was admitted to probate upon her death. Spofford’s sons, Michael Zani and Peter Zani, filed suit in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment that their mother lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the 2018 will and the imposition of a constructive trust on Spofford’s property, and alleging wrongful interference with an expectancy of inheritance against a beneficiary of the will and fraud against a witness to the will.
The Superior Court entered summary judgment against the Zanis on all counts. The Zanis appeal, arguing that the Superior Court erred in determining that there was no dispute of material fact regarding Spofford’s testamentary capacity on the date that she executed the 2018 will given that there was evidence of Spofford’s lack of testamentary capacity both before and after that date.
Oral Arguments: Thursday, October 9, 2025
at Falmouth High School, Falmouth
Murder; imperfect self-defense; expert testimony on psychology of decision-making; prosecutorial error; rebuttal testimony regarding blood spatter when witness not disclosed pretrial as expert; admissibility of evidence that defendant was prohibited from possessing firearm; propriety of sentencing
Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief
10:00 a.m.
Pen-24-401
State of Maine v. Austin W. Davis
Kaitlin L. Cook; Christopher Northrop
OUI; voluntariness of breath test taken after threat of jail if refused
Validity of marriage from religious ceremony held remotely; constitutionality of statute that permits marriage ceremony from two religious sects but not other religions
The trial court denied Dennis Winchester’s petitions for post-conviction review of his convictions for various burglaries and thefts. On appeal, Winchester argues that his attorneys in the original criminal proceedings provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to pursue speedy-trial claims in the trial court and on appeal. This Court invited amicus briefs to address whether Winchester’s right to a speedy trial was violated under article 1, section 6 of the Maine Constitution or under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
1:30 p.m.
Ken-22-53
State of Maine et al. v. Moosehead Mountain Resort et al.
Lauren E. Parker; Elliott R. Teel; Jonathan M. Flagg
The Superior Court granted summary judgment and awarded damages to the State of Maine in its suit against Moosehead Mountain Resort that sought to enforce covenants on a ski area once owned by the state and now owned by Moosehead, to ensure that the land remained available to the public. Moosehead appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the deed to a predecessor-in-interest of Moosehead’s required that the land be maintained in a certain way; (2) a covenant can run with the land without a benefited parcel, (3) there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a certain parcel retained by the State was a benefitted parcel or whether the defense of latches applied, (4) the ambiguities in the deed regarding the covenants must be resolved in favor of the state, (5) the covenant requiring that the land be available for “public use” is reasonable, and (6) the state was not required to give notice of its interpretation of the public-use covenant before suing Moosehead.
2:20 p.m.
Was-22-75
Francis Janusz et al. v. Eric Bacon et al.
William N. Palmer; Jonathan E. Selkowitz
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Francis and Maryann Janusz on their complaint for foreclosure against Eric Bacon. Bacon appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the parties had completed mediation, which is a statutory prerequisite to a judgment of foreclosure; and (2) Bacon received proper notice of the motion for summary judgment even though the Januszes did not mail a copy of the motion to Bacon’s address of record.
3:10 p.m.
Lin-22-85
Michael Zani et al. v. Medora Zani et al.
Laura P. Shaw; Christopher K. MacLean; Marie Mueller; George T. Dilworth; Amy K. Olfene; Andre G. Duchette
In 2018, while she was the subject of a guardianship and conservatorship, Patricia Spofford executed a will that was admitted to probate upon her death. Spofford’s sons, Michael Zani and Peter Zani, filed suit in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment that their mother lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the 2018 will and the imposition of a constructive trust on Spofford’s property, and alleging wrongful interference with an expectancy of inheritance against a beneficiary of the will and fraud against a witness to the will.
The Superior Court entered summary judgment against the Zanis on all counts. The Zanis appeal, arguing that the Superior Court erred in determining that there was no dispute of material fact regarding Spofford’s testamentary capacity on the date that she executed the 2018 will given that there was evidence of Spofford’s lack of testamentary capacity both before and after that date.
Aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs; search and seizure; standing to challenge warrant authorizing tracking device on car that defendant was frequently a passenger in
After a bench trial, Zachary Borg was convicted of domestic violence aggravated assault (Class B), domestic violence reckless conduct (Class D), and endangering the welfare of a child (Class D). The victim was a child who ingested fentanyl that she found in the house after Borg and some guests of his used fentanyl in the house and one of the guests lost some of the fentanyl. Borg appeals, challenging the conviction for assault and arguing that (1) the court failed to make the necessary findings that the State had proved that Borg had the required mental state as to his conduct; (2) before a court may convict a person of assault, the State must prove that the person engaged in the “use” of “force” against the victim, and Borg did not use any force against the victim and (3) the conduct that the court found that Borg committed was not legally sufficient to cause the required resulting harm.
The Town of Eliot’s Zoning Board of Appeals reversed the decision of the town’s Planning Board approving Odiorne Lane Solar, LLC’s application to install ground-mounted solar arrays on land owned by the Estate of Lillian H. Cromwell. Odiorne sought review by the Superior Court, which reversed the decision of the Board of Appeals, thereby permitting the project to proceed.
Jay Meyer, whose property abuts the Estate’s land, appeals, arguing that (1) the Planning Board erred in determining that Odiorne’s application was for a “public utility facility,” which is permitted in any zone in the town; (2) the Superior Court erred in determining that he had waived any challenge to the project based on the town’s back-lot ordinance; and (3) the proposed solar array violates the back-lot ordinance because the land does not have access to a public road through an adequate right-of-way.
11:00 a.m.
Cum-24-82
Peter Masucci et al. v. Judy's Moody, LLC, et al.
Orlando E. Delogu; Lauren E. Parker; Scott W. Boak; Keith P. Richard; Benjamin Ford; Sandra Guay; Joseph G. Talbot; Emily A. Arvizu; Camerin M. Rivera; David P. Silk; Gordon R. Smith
Roger Ouellette entered a conditional guilty plea to OUI. Ouellette appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the trooper who charged him was not permitted to enter the curtilage of his home at night either to summons him for a traffic violation or for the purposes of an “OUI investigation” after seeing him drive partially in the lane for opposing traffic on a two-lane road, drive up a private road to a garage, and then, ten minutes later, cross the two-lane road, drive down another private road, and stop in front of a house.
1:30 p.m.
Ken-22-53
State of Maine et al. v. Moosehead Mountain Resort et al.
Lauren E. Parker; Elliott R. Teel; Jonathan M. Flagg
The Superior Court granted summary judgment and awarded damages to the State of Maine in its suit against Moosehead Mountain Resort that sought to enforce covenants on a ski area once owned by the state and now owned by Moosehead, to ensure that the land remained available to the public. Moosehead appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the deed to a predecessor-in-interest of Moosehead’s required that the land be maintained in a certain way; (2) a covenant can run with the land without a benefited parcel, (3) there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a certain parcel retained by the State was a benefitted parcel or whether the defense of latches applied, (4) the ambiguities in the deed regarding the covenants must be resolved in favor of the state, (5) the covenant requiring that the land be available for “public use” is reasonable, and (6) the state was not required to give notice of its interpretation of the public-use covenant before suing Moosehead.
2:20 p.m.
Was-22-75
Francis Janusz et al. v. Eric Bacon et al.
William N. Palmer; Jonathan E. Selkowitz
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Francis and Maryann Janusz on their complaint for foreclosure against Eric Bacon. Bacon appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the parties had completed mediation, which is a statutory prerequisite to a judgment of foreclosure; and (2) Bacon received proper notice of the motion for summary judgment even though the Januszes did not mail a copy of the motion to Bacon’s address of record.
3:10 p.m.
Lin-22-85
Michael Zani et al. v. Medora Zani et al.
Laura P. Shaw; Christopher K. MacLean; Marie Mueller; George T. Dilworth; Amy K. Olfene; Andre G. Duchette
In 2018, while she was the subject of a guardianship and conservatorship, Patricia Spofford executed a will that was admitted to probate upon her death. Spofford’s sons, Michael Zani and Peter Zani, filed suit in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment that their mother lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the 2018 will and the imposition of a constructive trust on Spofford’s property, and alleging wrongful interference with an expectancy of inheritance against a beneficiary of the will and fraud against a witness to the will.
The Superior Court entered summary judgment against the Zanis on all counts. The Zanis appeal, arguing that the Superior Court erred in determining that there was no dispute of material fact regarding Spofford’s testamentary capacity on the date that she executed the 2018 will given that there was evidence of Spofford’s lack of testamentary capacity both before and after that date.
Future Dates
Oral arguments
Consideration on briefs
March 3, 4, and 5, 2026, at Portland
Week of March 16, 2026
April 7, 8, and 9, 2026, at Augusta
Week of April 20, 2026
May 5, 6, and 7, 2026, at Portland
Week of May 18, 2026
June 2, 3, and 4, 2026, at Portland
Week of June 16, 2026
[No oral arguments will be held in July or August 2026]
[No on-briefs consideration will be held in July or August 2026]
COURT ALERTS IN EFFECT.