Case law

Inhabitants of Skowhegan v. Heselton

117 Me. 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 13, 1917

This proceeding is based upon two bills in equity by the Inhabitants of the Town of Skowhegan v. Martin B. … Andrews v. King, 74 Maine, 224. They are not the agents of the town. Hamlin v. Biddeford, 85 Maine, 308.

Lunn v. City of Auburn

110 Me. 241 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 17, 1913

Carrigan v. Stillwell, 99 Maine, 434; Orono v. B. R. & E. Co., 105 Maine, 428. To do this these two sections must be considered together. What did the Legislature intend by the reservation? … , and confer their duties upon a promiscuous board?

City of Biddeford v. Yates

104 Me. 506 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 14, 1908

As was said in Collins v. Holyoke, supra: "The membership of the defendant board is not the same as when the assessment in question was made. … But while its members change from time to time, the Board itself as a tribunal is continuously the same.” See also Fairbanks v. Fitchburg, 132 Mass. 42 .

Construction Services Workers' Compensation Group Self Insurance Trust v. Stevens

8 A.3d 688 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 26, 2010

See Nichols v. Cantara & Sons, 659 A.2d 258, 260-61 (Me.1995); Dionne v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 621 A.2d 414, 417-18 (Me.1993). … Bank, FSB v.

State v. Cook

2 A.3d 313 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 19, 2010

Brown, 2000 ME 25, ¶ 15 , 757 A.2d at 772 (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). … State v.

Jeffry v. Allstate Insurance

161 Me. 94 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 9, 1965

(See Williams, et al. v. Brown, et al., post). *100 In Williams and Reid v. … Brown and Brown (1955), 4 D.L.R. 454, on appeal to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court from a judgment dismissing plaintiff-passengers’ action for damage, the issue was (1) whether plaintiff was a guest “without payment for such

Kotch v. American Protective Services, Inc.

788 A.2d 582 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 6, 2002

Wheeler v. … Dumond v.

Rogers & al. v. Humphrey

39 Me. 382 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1855

The contract under which the boards were delivered was not fully performed. … Reab v. McAllister, 4 Wend. 483 ; S. C. 8 Wend. 109 ; Still v. Hall, 20 Wend. 51 ; Blanchard v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342 . In Butterman v.

State v. Morrill

105 Me. 207 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 27, 1909

Com. v. Brown, 167 Mass. 144 . Exceptions overruled. Mittimus to issue in execution of sentence.

Toothaker v. Lauri, Inc.

631 A.2d 1241 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 6, 1993

In Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Constr. … Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176, 1179 (Me.1989). In this instance Toothaker’s claim was accepted, and the memorandum of payment reflects the level of weekly compensation at the rate for total incapacity.

Stone v. Thorbjornson

656 A.2d 1211 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 10, 1995

The Board denied Stone’s motion for findings of fact, and we granted appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 822 (Supp.1994). The issue of employment status is a mixed question of fact and law. Timberlake v. … Our review of a Board decision determining employment status is deferential. Bean v. Alrora Timber, Inc., 489 A.2d 1086, 1087 (Me.1985).

Pennell v. City of Portland

124 Me. 14 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 18, 1924

State v. Shannon, (Mo.), 33 S. W., 1137 ; Baltimore v. Lyman, (Md.), 48 Atl., 145 ; U. S. v. Schlierholz, 137 Fed., 622 ; Throop v. Langdon, 40 Mich., 673 . … Gen. v. Drohan, 169 Mass., 534 ; State v. Mackie, (Conn.), 74 Atl., 759 ; Coms. v. Goldsborough, (Md.), 44 Atl., 1055 ; Patton v.

Marston v. Marston

54 Me. 476 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

Clark v. French, 23 Maine, 221; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Maine, 139. Bean, for the plaintiff. Vose, for the defendants. … In cases like Houston v. Jordan, 35 Maine, 521, Low v. Marco, 53 Maine, 45, and Howe v.

Susi v. Davis

134 Me. 308 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 11, 1936

S., Chap. 118, Sec. 6; Rule V, Supreme Judicial and Superior Courts; Brown v. Webber, 103 Me., 60, 61, 68 A., 456 ; Hazen v. Wright, 85 Me., 314, 27 A., 181 ; Billings v. Gibbs, 55 Me., 238; Colburn v. … Lunt v. Brown , 13 Me., 236; Freeman v. Rankin, 21 Me., 446; Jones v. Smith, 79 Me., 446, 10 A., 254 . Title to the land from which the goods were taken is not necessarily in issue.

Webber v. Bath Iron Works Corp.

656 A.2d 748 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 31, 1995

Because this issue “does not involve an interpretation of the Act nor does it fall within the Board’s traditional area of expertise, .. we ... conduct an independent review of the Board’s decision.” Van Houten v. … Power Co. v.

Whalen v. Down East Community Hospital

980 A.2d 1252 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 15, 2009

Following an unsuccessful appeal to the appellate review committee of the board of trustees, the full board denied Dr. … See Morison v.

Partridge v. White

59 Me. 564 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1871

The case of Abbott v. Goodwin, 20 Maine, 408, does not apply. Whether Brown had authority originally to take the mortgage under which the plaintiff claims is immaterial.

Rutter v. Allstate Automobile Insurance

655 A.2d 1258 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 21, 1995

As we noted in Danforth v. L.L. … Riley v. Bath Iron Works, 639 A.2d 626, 627-28 (Me.1994). 2 .

Gay v. Dube

39 A.3d 52 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 8, 2012

See R.S. ch. 18, §§ 18-19, 21 (1857); 23 M.R.S. §§ 3021-23 (2011); Inhabitants of Orrington v. Cnty. Comm’rs, 51 Me. 570, 573 (1863) (Kent, J., concurring); Browne v. … Connor, 138 Me. 63, 66-67 , 21 A.2d 709 (1941); Brown v. Warchalowski, 471 A.2d 1026, 1031-32 (Me.1984); Fournier v.

Fogg v. Twin Town Chevrolet, Inc.

135 Me. 260 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 2, 1937

Brown v. Snell, 46 Me., 490, 496. The bill must be brought in accordance therewith. Wing v. Ayer et al., 53 Me., 138, 142. … Referring to the 1883 revision, this Court in Brown v. Lawton, 87 Me., 83, 32 A., 733, 735 , said: “Under § 14 of c. 90, the bill must be filed before the time for redemption has elapsed.