Louise Dorr v. Sarah Woodard (Errata)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Errata. Go to corrected Opinion
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2016 ME 79 Docket: Ken-14-551 Argued: November 5, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2016 Corrected: October 6, 2016 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. Dissent: JABAR, J. LOUISE DORR v. SARAH WOODARD ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court certified on May 26, 2016, is amended as follows: 1. The last sentence of Footnote 4 is amended as follows: See Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act, 22 M.R.S. §§ 4001 to 4099-H (2015); 18-A M.R.S. §§ 5-201 to 5-213 (2015) (guardians of minors); 18-A M.R.S. §§ 9-301 to 9-315 (2015) (adoption). 2. The second sentence of [¶35] is amended as follows: In Rideout, 2000 ME 198, 761 A.2d 291, the Court concluded that a grandparent could establish a “sufficient existing relationship” with a grandchild, and thereby establish standing to seek contact with the grandchild pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1803(1)(B), by proving that the grandparent had served as “the primary caregiver and custodian for [the] child over a significant period of time.” 2 3. In the last sentence of [¶41], the citation is corrected as follows: DerRose v. DerRose, 643 N.W.2d 259, 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) The original opinion on the Judicial Branch website has been replaced with the opinion as corrected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
