Case law

Doe v. Littlefield

99 Me. 317 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 5, 1904

Brown v. Snell, 46 Maine, 490; Munro v. Barton, 95 Maine, 262. … Brown v. Snell, 46 Maine, supra; Dinsmore v. Savage, 68 Maine, 191; Monro v. Barton, 95 Maine, supra.

Churchill v. Central Aroostook Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc.

742 A.2d 475 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 22, 1999

See Boehm v. American Falcon Corp., 1999 ME 16, ¶ 6 , 726 A.2d 692, 693 ; Campbell v. … Id. at 943-44 . [¶ 10] In Bourgoin v. J.P.

Derrig v. Fels Co.

1999 Me. 162 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 7, 2000

In Ross v. … See Farrow v. Carr Bros.

DuBois v. Town of Arundel

202 A.3d 524 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 12, 2019

See Paul v. … Planning Board denied Dubois Livestock's application.

Somes v. Flint Logging

635 A.2d 941 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 21, 1993

In reviewing a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, we generally accept the findings of fact and examine only for errors of law. LeBlanc v. United Eng’rs & Constructors Inc., 584 A.2d 675, 677 (Me.1991). … Dorey v. Forster Mfg. Co., 591 A.2d at 242 .

Gillison v. Farrin

632 A.2d 143 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 21, 1993

Nyzio v. Vaillancourt, 382 A.2d 856, 861 (Me.1978). The trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial based on excessive damages is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. C.N. Brown Co. v. … See Pettingill v. Turo, 159 Me. 350, 357 , 193 A.2d 367 (1963) (measure of damages); Brown v. Watson, 47 Me. 161, 163 (1859) (recovery for “trouble and loss of time”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929(1)(c) (1979).

Barker v. Roberts

8 Me. 101 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1831

The object of the parties manifestly was, that Cowan & Oaks should receive the logs at Sunkhaze, that they should saw them into boards, that they should run the boards to Bangor, and there deliver them to the plaintiffs. … Hussey & al. v. Thornton & al. was a case of conditional sale ; the question raised here is, whether there was any sale whatever. ' .. Judgment on the Verdict"..

Wilson v. Bath Iron Works

942 A.2d 1237 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 18, 2008

Jordan v. … See Harvie v.

Newhall v. Vargas

13 Me. 93 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1836

TJsherwood, to state, that a delivery on board the vendee’s ship was a delivery to him, so as to take away the right of stoppage, except as in the case of Fowler v. … delivered on board a general ship.

Northern Maine General Hospital v. Ricker

572 A.2d 479 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 29, 1990

Moyer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 233 A.2d 311, 316 (Me.1967). … In Penobscot Area, Etc v.

Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg

926 A.2d 1168 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 10, 2007

The Gensheimers appealed, and we vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded to the Planning Board for further findings. Gensheimer v. … Gerald v. Town of York, 589 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Me.1991) (citation omitted). B.

Tapley v. Smith

18 Me. 12 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 15, 1840

This point was decided in the case of Russell v. Richards et al. 1 Fairf. 429, to which we refer. … Hilborn v. Brown et al. 3 Fairf. 162.

In re Weapons Restriction of J.

2022 ME 34 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 21, 2022

See State v. Brown, 571 A.2d 816, 816 (Me. 1990). … Brown, 571 A.2d at 820 (emphasis added).

Andrews v. King

77 Me. 224 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 24, 1885

.) § § 58, 60, 210; Farrel v. Bridgeport, 45 Conn. 191 ; Cobb v. Portland, 55 Maine, 381. … People v. Fire Commissioners, 72 N. Y. 245 ; People v. Nichols, 79 N. Y. 582 ; People v. Campbell, 82 N. Y. 247 ; State v. Lufton, 64 Mo. 415 ; Rex v. Richardson, 1 Bun. 517 ; Dillon on Mun.

St. Clair v. Estate of Edwards

210 A.2d 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 7, 1965

Brown in equal shares.” The precise details of the remainder are of no moment. The testatrix in the November 1952 codicil, gave the homestead to Beatrice V. … In May 1954, by her codicil the testatrix gave her Packard automobile to Beatrice V. Brown, her Plymouth automobile to Olive Hannaford, and “wearing apparel and paintings” in four boxes to “Doris M. Frost, Marion H.

Stockwell v. Dillingham

50 Me. 442 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1862

The bill of sale from Brown & Lee to Chase is prima facie to be deemed the act of the firm and binding on them. "When a contract,” remarks Mr. Justice Story, in U. S. Bank v. … Church v. Sparrow, 5 Wend., 223 ; Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H., 167. The language used was sufficient to satisfy the defendants that it was a firm debt for the payment of which, they advanced their note.

Booker v. Town of Poland

599 A.2d 812 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 31, 1991

After a public hearing, the Board approved the issuance of the permit. … Efstathiou v. Payeur, 456 A.2d 891, 893 (Me.1983) (quoting 7 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1604, at 36 (1972)).

Bourgoin v. J.P. Levesque & Sons

726 A.2d 201 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 1, 1999

Id. [¶ 4] In Dumond v. Aroostook Van Lines, 670 A.2d 939, 943 (Me.1996), we interpreted former section 56-B. … For that reason, it cannot now challenge the calculation employed by the Board. See Guaranty Fund Mgt. Servs. v. Workers’ Compensation Bd., 678 A.2d 578, 582 (Me.1996) and Rosetti v.

Getchell v. Boyd

44 Me. 482 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1858

Haywood v. Chesterry, 12 Wend. R., 495. Any defect, though in form only, is fatal on general demurrer. Cla rke v. Brown, 6 N. H. R., 435. … J., in Clarke v. Brown, 6 N. H. R., 435, “ be himself correct in form.” Neither in such case is the scriptural injunction inapplicable — “ Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”

Dunphe v. O'Connor

697 A.2d 421 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 11, 1997

In the same decree, the Board stated: “No cost of living adjustments are payable pursuant to McDonald [v. Rumford Sch. Dist., 609 A.2d 1160, 1161 (Me.1992) ]. … As we have stated: Absent specific statutory authority, the Board may not reopen or amend a final decision. Wood v. Cives Constr. Corp., 438 A.2d 905, 908 (Me.1981); Anania v.