Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersme

5,972 results

1.46s

  • Clary v. Clary

    93 Me. 220 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 16, 1899

    I never at any time agreed with him that he should not pay board. Nothing was said between Mr. Clary and me in regard to his board.” The case of LaFontain v. … In that case, as in this, board was not furnished in consideration of a promise of marriage, but, rather, on account of the relations existing between the parties by reason of such a prior promise. In LaFontain v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Petition of Williams

    8 A.3d 666 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 23, 2010

    Bar R. 7.3(j)(5), (6); Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Campbell, 539 A.2d 208, 209 (Me.1988). Certainly this process must comport with due process requirements. Schware v. … Lefebvre, 1998 ME 24, ¶ 15 , 707 A.2d at 73 ; Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Our Way Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Wells

    535 A.2d 442 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 13, 1988

    When the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court reviewing the action of a board of appeals, we examine directly the record as developed before the Board. Marchi v. … Ballard Builder v. City of Westbrook, 502 A.2d 476, 480 (Me.1985) (citing Putnam v. Town of Hampden, 495 A.2d 785, 787 (Me.1985)).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • 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).

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Plummer v. Jones

    84 Me. 58 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 28, 1891

    Workman v. Worcester, 118 Mass. 168 ; Stone v. Charlestown, 114 Mass. 214 . Section one of the registration act provides : "A board of registration is hereby established in each city of the State,” &c. … Eyston v. Studd, Plowd. 465.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Alfred J. Sweet, Inc. v. City of Auburn

    134 Me. 28 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 29, 1935

    Tremont and Suffolk Mills v. City of Lowell, 271 Mass., 1 , 170 N. E., 819 ; Central Realty Co. v. Board of Review, 110 W. Va., 437 , 158 S. E., 537 ; Somers v. City of Meriden, 174 A., 184 (Conn. 1934). … Spear v. City of Bath, supra; Central Realty Co. v. Board of Review, supra; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. City of Hartford, 99 Conn., 329 , 122 A., 91 ; Massachusetts General Hospital v.

    Cited 44 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Coulombe v. Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maine, Inc.

    809 A.2d 613 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 1, 2002

    In Ciampi v. Hannaford Bros. … See also Jasch v. Anchorage Inn, 2002 ME 106, ¶ 9 , 799 A.2d 1216, 1218 ; Russell v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Beckley v. Town of Windham

    683 A.2d 774 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 30, 1996

    Sargent, Inc. v. Town of Wells, 676 A.2d 920, 923 (Me.1996). “The interpretation of an ordinance is a question of law that is guided by the language, objectives, and general structure of the ordinance.” Dyer v. … Bushey v. Town of China, 645 A.2d 615, 618 (Me.1994) (citing 82 Am.Jur.2d Zon *776 ing and Planning § 287 (1992 & Supp. 1994)).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Derrig v. Fels Co.

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

    In Ross v. … See Farrow v. Carr Bros.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Robertson v. Town of York

    553 A.2d 1259 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 3, 1989

    On review we examine directly, as does the Superior Court, the decision of the Board and the record as developed before the Board. Marchi v. Town of Scarborough, 511 A.2d 1071, 1072 (Me.1986). … LaPointe v. City of Saco, 419 A.2d 1013, 1015 (Me.1980) (citations omitted).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Harding v. Sheridan D. Smith, Inc.

    647 A.2d 1193 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 8, 1994

    The Board, however, denied the employer’s petitions for award and apportionment. In an appeal from a decision of the Board, we will “generally accept the findings of fact and examine only for errors of law.” Somes v. … We will not overturn a decision of the Board unless it can be said that the Board lacks a “rational basis for its application of law to the facts.” Dorey v. Forster Mfg. Co., 591 A.2d 240, 241-42 (Me.1991); Smith v.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Merrill v. Town of Durham

    918 A.2d 1203 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 10, 2007

    See, e.g., Shackford & Gooch, Inc. v. … IV, § V (1994).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • 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 .

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Frye v. E. I. duPont deNemours & Co.

    129 Me. 289 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 30, 1930

    Feingold v. Supovitz, 117 Me., 371; Davies v. Steamboat Co., 94 Me., 379, 385; Heath v. Stoddard, 91 Me., 499; 21 R. C. L., 856, 907; 2 C. J., 461. … Packard v. Insurance Co., 77 Me., 144; Thorne v. Casualty Co., 106 Me., 274, 281.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • State v. Town of Franklin

    489 A.2d 525 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 26, 1985

    Sirois v. Town of Frenchville, 441 A.2d 291, 294 (Me.1982). … See Perry v. Town of Friendship, 2 37 A.2d 405 , 407 (Me.1968); Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railway Co. v. Inhabitants of Brooks, 60 Me. 568, 573 (1872); Austin & Blaisdell v. Inhabitants of York, 57 Me. 304, 305 (1869).

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Application of Hughes

    594 A.2d 1098 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 2, 1991

    Taylor v. … See Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health, 481 A.2d at 152 . III.

    Cited 10 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.