Case law

Damren v. Trask

102 Me. 39 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 11, 1906

In Brown v. … Blake v. M. C. R. R. Co., 70 Maine, 60; Crocker v.

Maine Bonding & Casualty Co. v. Douglas Dynamics, Inc.

594 A.2d 1079 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 29, 1991

Co. v. Bragg, 589 A.2d 35, 36 (Me.1991). The insurer has a duty to defend if the complaint shows any potential that the facts ultimately proved may come within the scope of coverage provided under the policy. Lavoie v. … Burns v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 558 A.2d 701 (Me.1989).

Fessenden v. Coolidge

114 Me. 147 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 22, 1915

Browne v. Ward, 51 Maine, 191. But they do not import a valuable consideration of any particular kind. They are evidence prima facie of a valuable consideration of some kind. … Hurley v. Farnsworth, 107 Maine, 306. He need not state the consideration. The statute does not contemplate that the claimant must in the claim filed advise the administrator as to these things.

Carson v. Town of Oakland

442 A.2d 170 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 25, 1982

Thus, he was not able to make a proper verification of any need and the Board finds his decision was within the guidelines. … Michaud v.

Whitman v. Freese

23 Me. 212 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1843

The word “boards” was used not to indicate that the lumber was merchantable, or that if. was sold as such, but as a term applied to a particular species of lumber. … Bent v. Baker, 3 T. R. 27.

Town of Ogunquit v. Brazer

489 A.2d 505 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 25, 1985

See State v. Norton, 335 A.2d 607, 612 (Me.1975); City of Saco v. Jordan, 115 Me. 278, 279-280 , 98 A. 808 (1916). … The town relies on State v.

Inhabitants of Greenville v. Beauto

99 Me. 214 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 27, 1904

S., c. 18, § 51, to recover for board, nursing and medical attendance furnished the defendant while sick with small pox in the plaintiff town. … It is evident that so far as existing financial ability at that time is concerned, he was not “able” within the meaning of the statute, for, as was held in Orono v.

Gibson v. Waterhouse

5 Me. 19 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1827

Bent v. Baker, 3. D. & E. 27. Brown v. Clark, 3. Johns. 443. Keyes v. Stone, 5. Mass. 391. Wilson v. Mower, ib. 407. … So also in Lyle v. Clason, 1.

Doe v. Scribner

41 Me. 277 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1856

The case of Woodward v. Marshall, 22 Pick. 468 , was an action against the assignees, as trustees, and they were discharged. Similar were the cases of Fairbanks v. Haynes, 23 Pick. 232 ; Brown v. … Foster, 2 Met. 152 , and Macomber v. Weeks, 3 Met. 512 .

Questions Submiteed by the House of Representatives, March 25, 1903

97 Me. 595 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 25, 1903

The board of State assessors shall annually assess a .tax upon all lands situated in this State in places not incorporated as a town or plantation, and not paying a municipal tax, at the rate of fifteen mills on the dollar … People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539 .

Sheltra v. Auger

376 A.2d 463 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1977

Detective Agency v. Inhabitants of Sagadahoc, 137 Me. 233, 237-238 [ 18 A.2d 308 ] (1941). … “It is further ADJUDGED and DECREED that the action of the Board of County Commissioners of November 5, 1975, purporting to discharge Doris G. Camire and Celina A.

State v. McKenzie

605 A.2d 72 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 28, 1992

State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). When, as here, the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court, we examine directly the record of the District Court. State v. … See State v. O’Brien, 434 A.2d 9, 13 (Me.1981); State v. Lagasse, 410 A.2d 537, 542 (Me.1980).

Alexander v. Portland Natural Gas

778 A.2d 343 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 7, 2001

Hardy v. … In Fowler v.

Brewster v. Churchill

148 Me. 8 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 13, 1952

That language was quoted with approval in Brown v. … It was said in Brown v.

Barber v. Inhabitants of Town of Fairfield

460 A.2d 1001 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 10, 1983

Lovejoy v. Grant, 434 A.2d 45, 50 (Me.1981); see Beitzell v. Jeffrey, 643 F.2d 870, 874 (1st Cir.1981); State ex rel. Sweikert v. Briare, 94 Nev. 752, 755 , 588 P.2d 542, 544 (1979); see also Board of Regents v. … Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F.2d 153 , 156 n. 2 (8th Cir.1973) (school teacher denied due process entitled to salary but not to reappointment unless Board decided to reinstate).

State v. De Bery

103 A.2d 523 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 24, 1954

Donnell v. Board of Registration, 128 Me. 523 , 149 A. 153 . … For a full collection of the authorities see Donnell v. Board of Registration, 128 Me. 523 , 149 A. 153 , and extensive note 113 A.L.R. 1180 , et seq.

Mathews v. Fisk

64 Me. 101 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

In the -following December the defendant purchased the horse from Hatch and left him with Hatch to work for his board. … Spaulding v. Barnes, 4 Gray, 330 . An objection is taken to the form of the action. By It.

State v. Intoxicating Liquors

54 Me. 564 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

The portion found and adjudged by this board unfit is to be cast out and spilled upon the ground. … Commonwealth v. Ryan, 5 Mass., 90 . The same doctrine is reaffirmed in Hill v. Wells, 6 Pick., 104 , and in Commonwealth v. Emery, 11 Cushing, 411 . In the latter case, C. J.

Edgell v. Hyde

114 Me. 431 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 16, 1916

Sposedo v. Merriman, 11 1 Maine, 530. … Hatch v. Brown, 63 Maine, 410; Gilchrist v. Partridge, 73 Maine, 214. And as to the admission against objection of the testimony of Charles G.

Friends of the Boundary Mountains v. Land Use Regulation Commission

40 A.3d 947 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 5, 2012

If an “agency fails to make sufficient and clear findings of fact and such findings are necessary for judicial review, [this Court] will remand the matter to the agency or board to make the findings.” Carroll v. … York Ins. of Me., Inc. v.