Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Portland v. Jacobsky

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided August 6, 1985Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

SCOLNIK, J.,

with whom GLASSMAN,

J., joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the Court’s holding on the non-constitutional issues in this appeal. The Portland Ordinance is neither expressly nor implicitly preempted by State legislation. 30 M.R.S.A. § 1917 (1978). The enactment procedure complied with the clear purposes of the Portland Municipal Code. Crosby v. Inhabitants of the Town of Ogunquit, 468 A.2d 996, 998 (Me.1983). The procedure for adjudicating, and the punishment for committing, a civil violation under the ordinance do not place it in a larger criminal…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  5. New York v. FerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API