Case law

Union Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Emerson

345 A.2d 504 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 8, 1975

In Berry v. … In spite of that colloquialism, we do not speak of the buildings housing such businesses as ‘industrial plants.’ ” North Side Laundry Co. v. Board of Property Assess., 366 Pa. 636, 639 , 79 A.2d 419, 421 (1951).

Town of Windham v. LaPointe

308 A.2d 286 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 31, 1973

See, Forest City, Inc. v. Payson, 1968, Me., 239 A.2d 167 ; Toulouse v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 1952, 147 Me. 387 , 87 A.2d 670 . … To the same effect, Kovack v. Licensing Board, City of Waterville, 1961, 157 Me. 411 , 173 A.2d 554 ; Waterville Hotel Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 1968, Me., 241 A.2d 50 .

Parsons v. Inhabitants of Monmouth

70 Me. 262 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1879

Willey v. Greenbush, 30 Maine, 452. Sturtevant v. Libbey, 46 Maine, 457. Emery v. Mariaville, 56 Maine, 315. Bessey v. Unity, 65 Maine, 342. Any view counter to this in Chamberlain v. … For the facts reported utterly fail to satisfy us that the money received by Brown from the plaintiff ever went for the benefit of the town; but from the testimony of Brown himself we feel confident that it went in part to

Your Home, Inc. v. City of Portland

505 A.2d 488 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 26, 1986

See, e.g., Lyons v. Board of Dir. of School Admin. Dist. No. 43, 508 A.2d 233 , 235 (Me.1986); Bolduc v. Androscoggin County Comm’rs, 485 A.2d 655, 657 (Me.1984); Colby v. … See Lyons v. Board of Dir. of School Admin. Dist. No. 43, 503 A.2d 233, 236 .

Livermore Falls Trust & Banking Co. v. Riley

108 Me. 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 20, 1911

Woodbury v. Gardner, 77 Maine, 68. In such a case "the defendants are estopped to set up the statute of frauds in defense.” Low v. Low, 173 Mass. 580 . In 4 Pom. Eq. … See also McGuire v. Murray, 107 Maine, ( 77 Atl. 692 ), and Bank v. Marston, 85 Maine, 488. In Harrisburg Bank v.

Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.

946 A.2d 395 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 8, 2008

We have noted that decisions of the Board interpreting the Workers’ Compensation Act are entitled to great deference and will be upheld on appeal unless the statute plainly compels a different result. Jordan v. … McAdam v. United Parcel Serv., 2001 ME 4, ¶ 34 , 763 A.2d 1173, 1182 . B.

Fairbanks v. Barker

115 Me. 11 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 8, 1916

Charge for Board. … Note to Security Bank Note Co. v. Shrader, Ann. Cas., 1914, A, p. 490, and cases there cited. In Reed v.

Dufour v. Internal Medicine Associates

713 A.2d 339 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 7, 1998

IMA relies on Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 393 A.2d 156, 157 (Me.1978). … Severy v. S.D. Warren Co., 402 A.2d 53 , 55- (Me.1979); see also Hardy v. Hardy’s Trailer Sales, Inc., 448 A.2d 895, 898-99 (Me.1982); Mailman v.

State v. Garland

445 A.2d 1021 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 3, 1982

See State v. Thibodeau, Me., 317 A.2d 172, 177-78 (1974). The validity of Patricia Call’s consent rests upon a factual finding of vol-untariness. State v. Carter, Me., 443 A.2d 958, 959 (1982). … See State v. Curtis, Me., 399 A.2d 1330 , 1333 n.4 (1979); State v. Hazelton, Me., 330 A.2d 919, 921 (1975).

Jeffery v. Sheehan

135 Me. 246 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 12, 1937

Brown v. Haynes, 52 Me., 578; Bradley Land, etc., Company v. Eastern Manufacturing Company, 104 Me., 203, 71 A., 710 . Interest is allowable. Brown v. Haynes, supra; Wing v. Millikin, 91 Me., 387, 40 A., 138 . … Goodwin v. Goodwin, 90 Me., 23, 37 A., 352 ; Bridgham v. Hinds, 120 Me., 444, 115 A., 197 ; Amey v. Augusta Lumber Company, 128 Me., 472, 478, 148 A., 687 .

Stewart v. Leonard

103 Me. 128 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 2, 1907

Peabody v. Maguire, 79 Maine, page 585. … In Farlow v. Ellis et al, 15 Gray, page 231, Shaw, C.

LaPointe v. United Engineers & Constructors

680 A.2d 458 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 1, 1996

LaPointe contends that the Board’s interpretation of the Commission decision is the only permissible interpretation, citing Kennedy v. Brunswick Convalescent Ctr., 584 A.2d 678, 680 (Me.1991), and Harding v. Sheridan D. … Bouford v.

In re Petition of Gary M. Prolman for Reinstatement to the Bar of the State of Maine

273 A.3d 352 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 14, 2022

Prolman to the practice of law following the suspension imposed by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court (Alexander, J.) in accordance with our decision in Board of Overseers of the Bar v. … (orally), Board of Overseers of the Bar, Augusta, for appellant Board of Overseers of the Bar Mark V. Franco, Esq. (orally), and Sara P. Cressey, Esq., Drummond Woodsum, Portland, for appellee Gary M.

Dow v. Bradley

110 Me. 249 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 22, 1913

Fisher v. *252 Shaw, 42 Maine, 32, 39; Chase v. McLellan, 49 Maine, 375; Stetson v. Everett, 59 Maine, 376; Brown v. Lawton, 87 Maine, 83. … Brown v. Lawton, supra. In Schroeder v. Young, 161 U. S., 334, 344 , the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking by Mr.

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).

Gatchell v. Gatchell

127 Me. 328 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 25, 1928

Brown v. Brown, 66 Maine, 316. Whenever, by acts or words, or both acts and words, the grantor so *331 assents to the possession of the deed, then, and not until then, is delivery of the deed complete. … Golder v. Golder, 95 Maine, 259; McCarthy v. Welsh, 123 Maine, 157, 161.

Malonson v. Town of Berwick

853 A.2d 224 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 23, 2004

Malonson v. Town of Berwick, 2003 ME 148, ¶ 1 , 838 A.2d 338, 338 . On remand, the Board found that the project otherwise qualified for a use permit, 2 and the Superior Court then declared its earlier judgment final. … Maritime Energy v. Fund Ins. Review Bd., 2001 ME 45, ¶ 7 , 767 A.2d 812, 814 . Review of a board’s interpretation of a municipal zoning ordinance is de novo. Isis Dev. v.

Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Services, Inc.

10 A.3d 692 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 23, 2010

Servs. v. Workers’ Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578, 583 (Me.1996) (quotation marks omitted); Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358, 362 (Me.1994). … Cos. v. Murray, 420 A.2d 251, 252 (Me.1980) (holding lack of a provision for repayment of benefits after employer’s successful appeal is a question to be addressed by the Legislature); Ryerson v.

Sahl v. Town of York

760 A.2d 266 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 24, 2000

See Brooks v. … See Thomas v.

Your Home, Inc. v. City of Portland

501 A.2d 1300 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 19, 1985

In these circumstances, we review the record directly as developed before the Board and would grant no deference to the Superior Court’s decision had it reached the merits. See Your Home, Inc. v. … See Warren v. Municipal Officers of Gorham, 431 A.2d at 627-30 . The entry is: Judgment denying the plaintiffs’ appeal vacated. Judgment affirming the decision of the Portland Zoning Board of Appeals affirmed.