Case law

Lynch v. Town of Kittery

473 A.2d 1277 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 4, 1984

State v. … In Drummond v.

Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A.

954 A.2d 1051 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 9, 2008

In 2002, a complaint was filed with the Maine Board of Osteopathic Licensure against the doctor. … Blake v.

Maine Central Railroad v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad

395 A.2d 1107 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 4, 1978

Board of School Com’rs of Mobile County v. Hudgens, 274 Ala. 647 , 151 So.2d 247 (1963). Agreements to arbitrate are within the ambit of such rules and regulations. See 5 Am.Jur., Arbitration & Award, § 11, n. 10. … Plaintiff, also a Board member, submitted his claim to the Board’s Arbitration Committee, which rendered an ex parte award for plaintiff when defendant refused to appear.

Thompson v. Reed

75 Me. 404 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 13, 1883

Leroy v. Crowninshield, 2 Mason, 151 ; Tribodeau v. Lavassuer, 36 Maine, 362; Townsend v. Jemison, 9 How. 407 ; Brown v. Nourse, 55 Maine, 230. … Bulger v. Roche, 11 Pick. 36 ; Putnam v. Dike, 13 Gray, 535 .

City of Bangor v. Beal

85 Me. 129 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 16, 1892

The city by an ordinance of its City Council passed March 13, 1883, placed the funds so received in the care and custody of a board of five men, styled "Trustees of the Iidi’sey Fund.” … See also case Ludwick v. Huntzinger, 5 Watts and Serg. 51, cited with approval in Eaton v. Boissonnault, 67 Maine, 540. But we only decide the single question imposed on us by the pleadings and evidence.

Merrow v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission

495 A.2d 1197 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 15, 1985

Paige v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 391 A.2d 321, 325 (Me.1978); Therrien v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 370 A.2d 1385, 1390 (Me.1977). … The record discloses that the Plaintiff had extensive experience operating boarding homes. 2 .

Fournier v. Department of Corrections

983 A.2d 403 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 19, 2009

Corp. v. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., 2000 ME 102, ¶ 11 , 751 A.2d 1024, 1029-30 . This time limit must be applied uniformly and consistently to parties represented by counsel and self-represented parties alike. … See Brown v.

State v. Russo

260 A.2d 140 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 23, 1969

Mempa v. Rhay, 1967, 389 U.S. 128 , 88 S.Ct. 254 , 19 L.Ed.2d 336 ), it is generally held that constitutional requirements have no application. State v. Oliver (Me.1968) 247 A.2d 122 ; Escoe v. … People v. Rudnik (1952) 333 Mich. 216 , 52 N.W.2d 671 ; Arney v. State (1953) 195 Tenn. 57 , *142 256 S.W.2d 706 ; State v. Edelblute (1967) 91 Idaho 469 , 424 P.2d 739 ; State ex rel. Halverson v.

Davis v. City of Bangor

101 Me. 311 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 27, 1906

If the foregoing instruction be correct in the abstract, upon the authority of Blood v. … Keeley v. Portland, 100 Maine, 260. The case therefore comes exactly within the rule laid down in Keeley v.

Bradbury v. Fire Insurance

80 Me. 396 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 12, 1888

Everett v. Continental Ins. Co. 21 Minn. 76 ; Holbrook v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. 25 Minn. 229 ; McClure v. Girard Ins. Co. 43 Iowa, 349 ; Longueville v. Western Ins. Co. 51 Iowa, 553 ; Lyons v. … Lyons v. Providence Washington Ins. Co. 13 R. I. 347 ; Eddy Street Iron Foundry v. Hampden S. & M. F. Ins. Co. 1 Cliff. 300 ; Ring v. Phœnix Assurance Co. Mass. N. E. R. V. 5, No. 14, p. 387.

Edgecomb v. Town of Limestone

538 A.2d 767 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 8, 1988

No. 5 v. M.S.A.D. No. 5 Teach. … McNally v. Mokarzel, 386 A.2d 744 (Me.1978).

Associated Hospital Service of Maine v. Mahoney

161 Me. 391 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 13, 1965

Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 94 So. 681 , 689 (Fla. 1922); Smyth v. Titcomb, 31 Me. 272, 285 , but with cases contra as in Van Horn, et al. v. State ex rel. Abbott, 64 N. … Sullivan v. Boos, 126 N. W. (2nd) 579, 582 (Wis. 1964), or when an officer acts under advice of the State’s Attorney General. Baker, supra; State ex rel. Equality Sav. & Bldg. Ass’n v. Brown, 68 S.

Banchor v. Cilley

38 Me. 553 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1854

“A delivery by the consignor of goods, on board of a ship, chartered by the consignee, is a delivery to the consignee; and the rule is the same, if they were put on board a general ship for the conveyance.” 2 Kent’s Com. … In Carter & al. v.

Holt v. Westcott

43 Me. 445 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1857

In Spencer v. … The same doctrine was held in Howard v. Middleton, 3 McCord, 121 . Grant and al. v.

Zorn v. Carl R. Smith Potatoes

704 A.2d 864 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 24, 1997

The Board concluded that Smith was exempt from the obligation of securing payment of workers’ compensation pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 401(1) (Supp.1996) and that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the injury. 39-A M.R.S.A … Dishon v. Maine State Retirement Sys., 569 A.2d 1216, 1217 (Me.1990) (quoting McNicholas v.

Inhabitants of Rangeley v. Snowman

115 Me. 412 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 19, 1910

Dingley v. … Salley v. Robinson, 96 Maine, 474.

State v. Hersom

90 Me. 273 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 13, 1897

Had the respondent hit a person standing where the key-board was, although he aimed his rock at the head of the complainant, and there were an indictment against him for an assault on such other person, then the presumption … State v. Gilman, 69 Maine, 163. In fact there is no such legal presumption. It is merely a presumption of fact which the law sometimes sanctions, or approves, or allows a jury to act upon.

Carle v. Ladd

111 Me. 422 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 26, 1914

Carle for boarding the men. It is not contended, as we understand, and there would be no merit in such contention, that Mrs. … Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Maine, 542. The only ground on which the defendant’s liability in these actions is predicated is the theory that Mrs.

Anderson v. Standard Granite Co.

92 Me. 429 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 23, 1899

The original written contract fixed the price at $45 per thousand for blocks to be delivered by the plaintiff “on board vessels at Lane’s wharf, in Searsport, Me., at which wharf there is ten feet of water or more.” … Reed v. Boardman, 20 Pick. 441 ; Donohue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 148 ; Fuller v. Kent, 138 N. Y. 231 ; McDaniels v. Bank of Rutland, 29 Vt. 230 .

Bagley v. Raymond School Department

728 A.2d 127 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 23, 1999

See Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 8 , 67 S.Ct. 504 , 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947) (citing Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943)). See also Maine Human Rights Com'n v. … Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. at 15-16 , 67 S.Ct. 504 . . See, e.g., Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 509 U.S. 1 , 113 S.Ct. 2462 , 125 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). . See, e.g., Columbia Union College v.