# Charlton v. Town of Oxford

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · July 12, 2001 · 774 A.2d 366

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645365

## Case

- **Full name:** William and Barbara CHARLTON v. TOWN OF OXFORD Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** July 12, 2001
- **Citations:** 774 A.2d 366; 2001 ME 104; 2001 Me. LEXIS 110
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Calkins
- **Judges:** Wathen, Clifford, Rudman, Dana, Saufley, Alexander, Calkins
- **Cited by:** 70 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645365

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no special injury in part because there was nothing “to establish that they have suffered any pecuniary loss.”
- stating that a party bringing a common or public nuisance action must show some special and peculiar damage
- discussing Whitmore v. Brown, 102 Me. 47, 57 , 65 A. 516, 520 (1906)

## Opinion text

CALKINS, J.,
with whom DANA and ALEXANDER, JJ., join,
concurring.
[¶ 41] I concur in the result, but I write separately because I think that it is unnecessary for the Court to determine whether 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 or 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4302 provides a cause of action for the relief sought by the Charltons. Even assuming that there is a cause of action, there is no question that the Charltons must demonstrate that they have been damaged in order to obtain relief. The trial court found that the Charltons were not damaged, and that finding is supported by the evidence. That finding alone disposes of this case. The discussion of the availability of a cause of action is unnecessary to a disposition of this appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645365. Public record. Not legal advice.