Case law

Dorr v. Maine Maritime Academy

670 A.2d 930 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 2, 1996

In Ward v. … Remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. All concurring. 1 .

Lawrence v. Ford

44 Me. 427 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1857

Williams v. Veazie, 8 Greenl. R., 106; ib. 138. … Chesley v. Brown, 11 Maine R., 143.

Bilodeau v. Maine Employment Security Commission

153 Me. 254 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 21, 1957

Ablondi, et al. v. Board of Review (Superior Ct. App. Div.), 73 A. (2nd) 262 (N. J.); Great A. & P. Tea Company v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor and Industry, etc. (Superior Ct. App. Div.), 101 A. (2nd) 573 (N. J.). … Gerber v. Board of Review, etc., supra; Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U. S., 143 ; Johnson v. Iowa Employment Sec. Com., 32 N. W. (2nd) 786 (Iowa). See 28 A. L. R. (2nd) 287. 81 C. J.

State v. Arnold

421 A.2d 932 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 28, 1980

As we said in State v. … State v. Stone, Me., 294 A.2d 683 (1972). See also United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); Frisbie, Warden v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 , 72 S.Ct. 509 , 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952).

Andrews v. Department of Environmental Protection

1998 Me. 198 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1998

See Bush v. … See, e.g., Bartlett v.

State v. O'Donnell

131 Me. 294 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 27, 1932

State v. Lambert, 97 Me., 51, 53 A., 879 ; State v. Albanes, 109 Me., 199, 83 A., 548 ; State v. Priest, 117 Me., 223, 103 A., 359 ; State v. Dodge, supra. … State v. Grover, supra; State v. Priest, supra.

State v. Fletcher

126 Me. 153 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 31, 1927

State v. Intox. Liquors, 80 Me., 57; Com. v. Kimball, 24 Pick., 366 , 373; See Title, Words and Phrases. … S., State v. Wenworth, 65 Me., 234; State v. Brown, 31 Me., 520; Com. v. Nichols, 10 Met., 259 ; Com. v. Holmes, 119 Mass., 195 ; Com. v. Uhrig, 138 Mass., 492 ; State v.

Pamela A. Dobbins v. Mark J. Dobbins

234 A.3d 223 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 21, 2020

Black v. … Dobbins Donald Brown, Esq., Don Brown Law, Brewer, for appellee Pamela A. Dobbins Bangor District Court docket number FM-2006-416 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY

Gorham Savings Bank v. Baizley

704 A.2d 398 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 8, 1998

See Town of Orrington v. … Mmnelusa Co. v.

Raymond v. Portland Railroad

100 Me. 529 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 6, 1905

Then he proceeds to. quote from Storer v. … See also Rowse v. Downs, 5 Kan. App. 549 ; McPheters v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 45 Mo. 22 ; Reed v. Western Union Tel. Co., 135 Mo. 661 ; Culbertson v. Halliday, 50 Neb. 229 .

Sacknoff v. Sacknoff

131 Me. 280 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 20, 1932

Spiller v. Close, 110 Me., 302, 86 A., 173 ; Laughlin v. Eaton, 54 Me., 156; Ballard v. Russell, 33 Me., 196. … Morrison v. Brown, 84 Me., 82, 24 A., 672 ; Hobbs v. Hobbs, 70 Me., 383. “It relates to cases when, by the very assumption, the hunsband may be a party with the wife, or not, at her election.” Hobbs v.

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc.

2022 ME 36 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 23, 2022

Goggin v. … See Wawenock, LLC v.

Estes v. Smith

521 A.2d 682 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 24, 1987

See Brickley v. Leonard, 129 Me. 94, 97 , 149 A. 833, 835 (1930). … Chillingworth provided him with plane tickets, room and board and paid him $300 a month. The plaintiffs responsibilities included nursing care of Mrs. Chillingworth, shopping, cooking and maintaining the grounds.

Joyce v. S.D. Warren Co.

759 A.2d 712 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 28, 2000

In Moreau v. … Remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board to dismiss the 1992 injury claims as barred by the then applicable statute of limitations. . See Moreau v. S.D. Warren Co., 2000 ME 62 , 748 A.2d 1001 ; Wallace v. S.D.

Stoddard v. Crocker

100 Me. 450 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 16, 1905

Jones on Liens, § 976; Mulliner v. Florence, 3 Q. B. Division, 489; Jones v. Pearle, 1 Strange, 556. The statute as to warehousemen, c. 31, E. S. of 1883, made no provision for sale. … Bassett v. Carleton, 32 Maine, 553; Sudbury Meadows v. Middlesex Canal, 23 Pick. 47 ; Starbird v. Brown, 84 Maine, 240.

Parsons v. Stevens

107 Me. 65 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 14, 1910

Pitman v. Thornton, 65 Maine, 96, 99; Clapp v. Thaxter, 7 Gray, 384 ; Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 26 ; 2 Smith’s Chancery Practice, pages 5 et seq. … In Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 26 , it was said "By the established rule of chancery practice a rehearing in the sense in which that term is used in proceedings in equity cannot be allowed after a decree is enrolled.”

Lear v. Manser

114 Me. 342 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 3, 1916

For example, in Howard v. Am. … Cutter v. Burrows, 100 Maine, 379. This case therefore is plainly distinguishable from *347 that of Murdock v. Bridges. For a case very similar to the one at bar, see Dennis v.

Cushing Nature & Preservation Center v. Town of Cushing

785 A.2d 342 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 29, 2001

Charlton v. Town of Oxford, 2001 ME 104, ¶ 10 , 774 A.2d 366, 371 . … Bell v. Town of Wells, 557 A.2d 168, 173 (Me.1989).

Ponce v. Smith

84 Me. 266 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 4, 1892

The dinner to consist of a clam bake, with the usual accompaniments of lobsters, eggs, sweet and Irish potatoes, brown bread, white bread, pilot bread, baked beans and pork, and coffee, sufficient supply of milk, sugar, butter … Smith v. Berry, 18 Maine, 122; Furlong v. Polleys, 30 Maine, 401; Tufts v. Grewer, 83 Maine, 407 ; Morse v. Moore, 83 Maine, 473.

State v. Woodward

34 Me. 293 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1852

State v. Crowell, 25 Maine, 171. State v. Churchill, 25 Maine, 306. The reasoning of the Court in those cases applies with equal force to the present, and must be considered decisive of this point. … The granting a license to a common victualer to sell to those who may board with him, or to others, would be not merely inconsistent with, but would be a palpable violation of the first section.