Case law

Plumbago Mining Corp. v. Sweatt

444 A.2d 361 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 1982

It is an established principle of equity that A person who has conferred a benefit upon another in compliance with a judgment, or whose property has been taken thereunder, is entitled to restitution if the judgment is reversed … Immunity. Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all governmental entities shall be immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages.

GENUJO LOK Beteiligungs GmbH v. Zorn

2008 Me. 50 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 18, 2008

Therefore, the court did not err in concluding that the May 10, 2004 judgment qualifies as a foreign judgment within the meaning of the Maine Recognition Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8502(2). 6 B. … Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512 , 1520 (11th Cir.1994) (“Germany’s legal system clearly follows procedures that ensure that litigants will receive treatment that satisfies American notions of due process.”); see also Dresdner

O'Malley v. O'Malley

338 A.2d 149 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 21, 1975

ISSUE IV Appellant has challenged as clearly erroneous other findings and conclusions made by the Justice below. … It is not necessary to discuss whether the probate decree is equally immunized from, collateral attack. One valid judgment is sufficient to uphold the lower court’s award of custody.

Northeast Bank & Trust Co. v. Soley

481 A.2d 1123 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 5, 1984

I The schedule In order to satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule, 2 the proponent of the record must establish, by the testimony of “the custodian or other qualified witness” that (1) the record was made … While this type of communication within the enterprise is hearsay, it clearly falls within the scope of the business records exception.

Roberts v. McIntire

84 Me. 362 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 24, 1892

The precise question has never been directly determined in this State, but the correct solution of it is only a corollary from the principles established by our decisions respecting the true intent and meaning of this statute … He clearly had no desire to exercise that right, but a manifest purpose to waive it and to express his assexxt to the deed.

Radvanovsky v. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs Employment Security Commission

427 A.2d 961 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 6, 1981

Broad concepts of welfare assistance must not be made to control or restrict the primary purpose of the Employment Security Law, unless clearly dictated by legislative terminology. … While this is the appropriate and presumed office of a proviso, it may be clearly designed to perform some other function.

LaFleur Ex Rel. Anderson v. Frost

146 Me. 270 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 27, 1951

upon the expiration of the thirty-day period for signatures by qualified voters. … Clearly, the initiative and referendum under the “city ordinance” is not the same initiative and referendum set forth in the Charter.

Owen v. Royal Industries, Inc.

314 A.2d 60 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 7, 1974

The petitioner maintains that he was an employee of Royal Industries, Inc. on the day of the mishap and should therefore qualify for workmen’s compensation benefits. … Allen & Sons, Inc., Me., 266 A.2d 240 (1970), we construed this language to mean that the Commission’s findings will not be upset *62 unless “clearly erroneous”. 1 In the instant case, we are applying this clearly erroneous

Bartley v. Eastern Maine Medical Center

617 A.2d 1020 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 14, 1992

Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court on the basis that the approval of their staff privileges established a contract between them and the hospital. … The granting of privileges signifies that a doctor is qualified to practice at the hospital. 5 EMMC has determined that *1023 each of the Plaintiffs is qualified, and that determination is embodied in the staff privileges

State v. Verrill

54 Me. 408 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

This mode of framing indictments in the higher crimes may be considered, therefore, as having been established rather by precedent and authority than by any legal principle involved. … The second and third sections do not in any respect qualify the first, but defines the different degrees of murder.

Perkins v. Blethen

107 Me. 443 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 6, 1931

By a well established line of cases in this State it is held that this statute gives a married woman the power to contract with her husband as well as with strangers in reference to her separate estate. Webster v. … On the other hand, it is as clearly held that the common law doctrine of the marriage relation is still in full effect except as modified by statute, and this is inconsistent with the maintenance of actions at law between

Maine AFL-CIO Housing Development Corp. v. Town of Madawaska

523 A.2d 581 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 2, 1987

The corporation’s contracts with HUD require it to comply with federal regulations that limit tenant eligibility for housing at the project to very low income elderly or handicapped individuals and establish maximum levels … The HUD regulations controlling the corporation’s project clearly restrict the eligibility of tenants to those whose incomes are very low and who are either elderly or handicapped.

Cornwall Industries, Inc. v. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, Employment Security Commission

351 A.2d 546 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 30, 1976

This Act provides for the accumulation of reserves during periods of employment to be paid to qualified workers during periods of unemployment. … The issue in Stewart was whether the petitioner qualified as an employer within section 1043, the Act’s definitional section.

Maine Water Co. v. Knickerbocker Steam Towage Co.

99 Me. 473 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 17, 1905

Clearly not. And yet such a bridge would not be affirmatively authorized by Congress except in the proviso in the section. … And in its new position we think that the general prohibition is likewise qualified by the sentences which follow.

Gannett v. Old Colony Trust Co.

155 Me. 248 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 23, 1959

If issue of John survive the stated contingency, will they qualify as takers (by right of representation) in the capacity of “issue” of the testator ? We answer in the affirmative. … He established three equal life *250 estates, one of which was for the benefit of “my son, John H. Gannett.”

Russell v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.

32 A.3d 1030 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 6, 2011

The establishment of the prima facie burden simply allows a plaintiff to proceed with the action. The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff at all times. … The Legislature clearly intended that the protections of the MHRA reach employers who are based in Maine even if they have out-of-state employees as well as employers based elsewhere who have employees in Maine.

State v. Dechaine

630 A.2d 234 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 26, 1993

He argues that by reason of their service as jurors they were qualified pursuant to M.R.Evid. 702 as “true experts for the issue of weighing new evidence.” … Clearly it is the trial court, not a juror, that possesses the superior knowledge and experience for determining whether any new evidence offered on a motion for a new trial meets the five well-established criteria for the

Von Tiling v. City of Portland

268 A.2d 888 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 21, 1970

As the Legislature has not seen fit to establish a uniform procedure the cities are free to adopt machinery which appears best suited to their particular needs. … In order to declare a municipal ordinance invalid because it is unreasonable or unconstitutional, the invalidity must be clearly and satisfactorily shown, and must be palpable and manifest.

In Re Bailey M.

788 A.2d 590 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 28, 2002

See Andrews, ¶ 4, 716 A.2d at 215 (interlocutory review of denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment stage proper because reversal after judgment would not vindicate defendant’s right to avoid having to defend suit … The statute clearly states that the presumption is that proceedings will be closed absent extraordinary circumstances.

Maine Human Rights Commission Ex Rel. Kellman v. Department of Corrections

474 A.2d 860 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 11, 1984

The defendant clearly had the right to make possession of an “appropriate personality” one qualification for the JCIW positions. … Farr’s testimony was not credible is entitled to deference unless clearly erroneous, we believe the court in this ease has gone too far. The court disbelieved Farr’s testimony that he found Ms.