Case law

Comparetto v. Diaz Corp.

431 A.2d 1326 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 14, 1981

The worker said that this condition prevented him from undertaking any employment for which he was qualified. … In light of this evidence the Commission’s finding of fact that the worker was 40% disabled is not clearly erroneous and, therefore, will not be disturbed on appeal.

Department of Corrections v. Public Utilities Commission

968 A.2d 1047 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 2009

Only if the Department qualifies as a “legal entity” that transmits communications by telephone for compensation could the Department be encompassed by the statute. … The Legislature granted the Department broad power and authority to establish policies and procedures to manage the prisons and the persons incarcerated within them.

State v. Fournier

267 A.2d 638 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 16, 1970

In order to prove its case against the defendant Fournier and one Gardner Corey, a co-defendant, the State extended immunity to Leo and called him as its own witness. … It is a long established rule that a party calling a witness may not by general evidence impeach his competency or credibility. But, as stated in State v.

State v. McLaughlin

642 A.2d 173 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 26, 1994

Cookson’s testimony, despite her best efforts, established the exchange of insults, scratches, and shoves. … Based on the facts before us, we cannot say that the District Court’s finding that Cookson’s statements qualified as excited utterances was clearly erroneous.

Lawrence v. Chase

54 Me. 196 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1866

The reasons for requiring such a special plea are, that the statute of frauds does not make contracts within its pi’ovis-ions illegal; it only secures to the defendant an immunity, *200 which he may avail himself of or not … as he sees fit; and if he sees fit to avail himself of it he should say so, clearly and distinctly, at the outset, and not by a general traverse put the plaintiff to the trouble and expense of proving the promise set forth

Town of Kittery v. White

435 A.2d 405 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 2, 1981

If the justice below meant to find the tire business a lawful nonconforming use, his finding was clearly erroneous. … In the context of this case, Gagne simply means that the portion of the building zoned for local business, plus the 50-foot extension, is immune from the residential restrictions applicable to the rest of the lot.

John Doe I v. Robert Williams

61 A.3d 718 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 5, 2013

Courts must be cautious in recognizing fundamental rights that have not been clearly established because “extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest ... placets] the matter outside the arena … The State’s sovereign immunity bars retroactive recovery of payments voluntarily made to the State. See Wellman v.

Boston Milk Producers Inc. v. Halperin

446 A.2d 33 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 20, 1982

The court therefore declared the tax purportedly established under P.L. 1979, ch. 452 to be null and void, and the tax established by old section 4505 of title 36, as enacted by P.L. 1969, ch. 213, section 1 (five cents per … For examples of such charters, see Me.Priv. & Spec.L., 1845, ch. 270, “An Act to establish the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rail Road;” id., ch. 285, “An Act to establish the Penobscot and Kennebec Rail Road.” 11 .

McElwee v. Mahlman

117 Me. 402 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 16, 1918

The description was indefinite, every mention of distance was qualified by the use of the words “more or less,” and the northerly bound was “property now owned by McElwee.” … In reaching our conclusion the oral testimony has thrown some light, but the deeds introduced, especially the deed to the defendant, considered in connection with the plan, clearly establish what the oral testimony tends

Cushing v. Smith

457 A.2d 816 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 10, 1983

It intends to establish a group home for the recovering mentally id at that property. … Since the proposed use did not qualify as a single or two family residence, CIG was also required to seek a variance before establishing a group home at 3 Hudson Street.

Penobscot Area Housing Development Corp. v. City of Brewer

434 A.2d 14 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 14, 1981

See Comment, Governmental Immunity from Local Zoning Ordinances, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 869, 883-86 (1971). … The language of the definition itself clearly suggests the comparison is appropriate.

Kennebec Towage Co. v. State

142 Me. 327 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 31, 1947

The action was brought by virtue of a legislative resolve, whereby the State waived its immunity to suit, and authorized an action at law with the “liabilities of the parties the same as the liabilities between individuals … I want to qualify it. Disregard what I said. It is not for me to say what damages are. I thought I was shortening some of your work, but I have no right when objected to.

Arthur Murdock v. Martin Thorne

166 A.3d 119 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 27, 2017

and the exclusivity and immunity provisions of Maine’s workers’ compensation statute. 6 779 A.2d 951. … 81, ¶ 10, 8 709 A.2d 733 (“When an interested witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions, he cannot create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Stephen L. Clifford

246 A.3d 597 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 25, 2021

The court was in the position to observe the document and hear the testimony; therefore, the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Lincoln v. … A finding is clearly erroneous only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it. Id.

Rendell v. Harriman

75 Me. 497 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 28, 1883

Brown, it is suggested that it does not appear that the maker of the note had any authority to bind the town ; but from the opinion it clearly appears that the liability is fixed upon the .agent by force of the terms of the … True, the defendants affixed to their names their official title, with the. name of the corporation in which they held office, but nothing whatever to qualify their promise or in the slightest degree to show it other than

Upstream Watch v. City of Belfast et al.

299 A.3d 25 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 2023

establish Upstream’s status as an aggrieved person as a matter of law. … See § 66-1(c). [¶27] Our review establishes that the administrative record clearly demonstrates as a matter of law that at least one of Upstream’s members was an aggrieved person.

Tripp v. Garey

7 Me. 266 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1831

Had the defendant been appointed a sergeant and received his warrant as such, and was he qualified to act in that capacity, at the time of his pretended appointment as clerk l Clearly not; — for in the body of the same instrument … If the recital be true, it follows that his clerk’s appointment was prior in time to his sergeant’s warrant; or in other words that he was appointed clerk before he was qualified to act as sergeant.

Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Lisa Berry

2020 ME 95 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 2, 2020

In order to lay the proper foundation, a party must provide, in relevant part, “the testimony 8 of the custodian or another qualified witness,” M.R. … As the party with the burden of proof at trial, Wilmington “must establish on this appeal that contrary findings were compelled by the evidence.” Wuestenberg v.

Malloch v. Maine Employment Security Commission

159 Me. 105 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 18, 1963

“---it is fundamental that we look to the purpose for which a law is enacted and that we avoid a construction which leads to a result clearly not within the contemplation of the lawmaking body. … They each prescribe qualifying conditions required to be met by the employee in order for him to receive the benefits.

Grindle v. Bunker

115 Me. 108 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 7, 1916

Under the established rules, “words and phrases shall be construed according to the common meaning of the language. … Clearly that meant a vacancy in fact. In the revision of 1841, the words “death, resignation or removal” were omitted without any intervening amendatory acts, and the word vacancy stands alone, R.