238 A.3d 250
Me.2020Background
- David A. Jones and others filed a Rule 80C petition in Superior Court challenging the Secretary of State’s determination that insufficient signatures existed to place a people’s veto of ranked‑choice voting on the Nov. 2020 ballot.
- The Superior Court (Cumberland County) vacated the Secretary’s determination.
- The Secretary of State and intervenor Committee for Ranked Choice Voting appealed and moved to stay execution of the Superior Court judgment pending appeal; the Committee argued Rule 62(e) created an automatic stay (and alternatively sought a discretionary stay), and the Secretary sought relief under Rule 62(g).
- Jones opposed, arguing that appeals in administrative‑review matters do not automatically stay agency action and that the Superior Court’s order was not an injunction; he relied on 5 M.R.S. § 11004 and the absence of any request or findings for injunctive relief.
- The Law Court concluded that M.R. Civ. P. 62(e) operates to stay execution of a Superior Court judgment upon appeal (including in administrative appeals), that the Superior Court had not issued or treated its order as an injunction, and therefore an automatic stay was in place.
- Because the automatic stay under Rule 62(e) already applied, the motions for stay were dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (Secretary/Committee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appeal automatically stays execution of a Superior Court judgment vacating an agency decision | Appeal from Superior Court in an administrative review does not create an automatic stay; §11004 governs stays of agency action | Rule 62(e) provides that taking an appeal operates as a stay of execution of the judgment | Rule 62(e) applies: docketing an appeal automatically stays execution of the trial court judgment during the appeal |
| Whether the Superior Court’s order was an injunction (and thus excepted from automatic stay) | The Superior Court’s vacatur functioned as granting/dissolving an injunction; Rule 81(c) treats such relief as injunctive | The Superior Court did not grant injunctive relief; Jones never sought injunction and court made no injunction findings | Not an injunction for Rule 62(d) purposes; exception to automatic stay does not apply |
| Whether National Organization for Marriage controls (i.e., does a petition for review stay the agency action) | Nat’l Org. shows agency decision is not stayed by filing for review | Rule 62(e) concerns stay of Superior Court judgment on appeal, distinct from staying the agency action under §11004 | Nat’l Org. remains correct that petition for review does not stay the agency action under §11004, but it does not prevent automatic stay of the Superior Court judgment under Rule 62(e) |
| Whether the Law Court should exercise discretionary injunctive power (Rule 62(g)) to alter the status quo | Opposes additional stay; no injunction was requested or shown | Sought court intervention to preserve status quo/effectiveness of judgment | Court did not reach merits of Rule 62(g) relief because Rule 62(e) automatic stay made motions moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Doggett v. Town of Gouldsboro, 812 A.2d 256 (Me. 2002) (appeal to appellate court suspends trial court authority and stays effect of remand in administrative review)
- Hawkes Television, Inc. v. Me. Bureau of Consumer Credit Prot., 462 A.2d 1167 (Me. 1983) (dissolving a trial‑court injunction in a Rule 80B case while appeal automatically stayed the matter)
- National Organization for Marriage v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices, 121 A.3d 792 (Me. 2015) (petition for judicial review does not operate as a stay of final agency action under statutory scheme)
- Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 837 A.2d 129 (Me. 2003) (sets the four‑factor test for injunctive relief)
- Senty v. Bd. of Osteopathic Examination & Registration, 594 A.2d 1068 (Me. 1991) (appellate court stayed trial‑court injunction after trial court refused relief)
- In re Involuntary Treatment of K., 228 A.3d 445 (Me. 2020) (discussion of mootness: issues are moot when decision would not provide effective relief)