Case law

Torrey v. Full Gospel Church of Searsport

394 A.2d 276 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 17, 1978

We cannot say that his factual conclusion was clearly erroneous. … The Superior Court erred in concluding that the District Court’s finding was clearly erroneous.

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.

Green Acre Baha'i Institute v. Town of Eliot

150 Me. 350 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 23, 1954

Certain rules governing situations of this sort are well established. Taxation is the rule and exemption the exception. Park Association v. Saco, supra. … There was also -evidence of a hopeful, though not a clearly planned or definite intention, that the area might in the future be used for the enlargement and development of the institution’s facilities.

Eric v. Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor

2019 ME 19 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 29, 2019

In this case, the qualified foreign jurisdiction is Rogaland, Norway, as neither party disputes. [¶19] In order to receive a credit for income tax paid to a qualified foreign jurisdiction, the foreign income on … Section 5217-A assumes that the qualified foreign jurisdiction calculates taxable income using AGI with a provision analogous to 36 M.R.S. § 5142.7 If a qualified foreign jurisdiction defines taxable income in some other

Austin v. Austin

748 A.2d 996 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 7, 2000

Defendant is to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] for that purpose.” … Defendant is to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for that purpose.”

Irving Oil Limited v. ACE INA Insurance

91 A.3d 594 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 1, 2014

allowing an immediate appeal, for example appeals from the grant or denial of an order for attachment or trustee process, see Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 304(b) at 228 (4th ed. 2013); a civil defendant’s claim of immunity … The cost and delay of litigating [absent an interlocutory appeal] does not qualify as a loss of substantial rights or permanent foreclosure of relief. . . .

Hill v. Portland & Rochester Railroad

55 Me. 438 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

It was competent, clearly, for the plaintiff to show that the whistle produced the same effect on his horse that it did on plaintiff’s horse. … But, if such a general custom could be established, it would not be a legitimate defence in this case, or tend to establish it.

Beaulieu v. City of Lewiston

440 A.2d 334 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 27, 1982

Each Maine municipality is required to establish and operate a general assistance program. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4504(1). … By statutory command, each municipality must establish a general assistance program. § 4504(1).

Casco Bank & Trust Co. v. Cloutier

398 A.2d 1224 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 16, 1979

As will more clearly appear below, we are called upon to elucidate the policies served by those formal requisites in order to determine the ultimate question raised by the appeals: whether and under what circumstances, consistently … However, where more than one document is proffered to establish the enforceability of a security interest, sound analysis requires that we make a threshold inquiry as to the criteria by which we determine, consistently with

Johnson v. Amica Mutual Insurance

733 A.2d 977 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 8, 1999

Clearly, any alleged bodily injury or property damage arose out of and in connection with the Johnsons’ trade, profession, or occupation. *980 Therefore, exclusion 1(b) specifically precludes coverage for defense and indemnification … in the Herzog suit. [¶ 7] The general allegations in Her-zog’s complaint give rise to no set of facts that would establish coverage under the policy.

State v. Clarke

396 A.2d 228 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 11, 1979

Although § 4-A(l)(B) clearly sets October 24, 1977 as the effective date for § 4-A(4), the “saving clause” raises the question whether the Code or prior law controls a prosecution, commenced after that effective date of the … One of the purposes of requiring a dog license is to ensure that the dog has been immunized against rabies.

Hughes v. State

161 Me. 424 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 14, 1965

He was duly appointed and qualified on July 6, 1961, for a term of four years to expire on July 5, 1965. … We believe that appellant would be entitled to discharge under the writ, if the District Court clearly did not have power to act.”

State v. Holland

976 A.2d 227 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2009

It is unknown how many African-Americans in Androscoggin County were qualified on the basis of age for jury duty. … “Random selection” refers to “the selection of names in a manner immune from the purposeful or inadvertent introduction of subjective bias, so that no recognizable class of the population on the lists from which the names

State v. Hamilton

237 A.2d 586 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 26, 1968

Such an exception should be overruled when the testimony of the State’s witnesses, if believed, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. … If there were an illegal arrest without a warrant — and we do not suggest that this was the case — the defendant received by virtue of it no immunity bath which would bar later prosecution after a new arrest. State v.

Michelle L. Seymour v. Joshua J. Seymour

263 A.3d 1079 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 23, 2021

The court summed up its findings by noting that “the evidence clearly demonstrates that this case boils down to one very sad and unfortunate fact: both of the parties are still treating each other abysmally which is harming … The first category of facts includes those matters that can be established with the general knowledge of those persons who live in the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Bragdon v. Chase

149 Me. 146 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 14, 1953

It then becomes entirely unnecessary to decide whether or not the other required elements have been established by the evidence.” In the recent case of Coffin v. … Bisson et al., supra: “There can be no point in discussing the evidence relative to damages in a case where liability has not been established-----.” We also said in Stewart v.

Matheson v. Bangor Publishing Co.

414 A.2d 1203 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1980

which the parties have abstracted from the case in an attempt to get a binding Law Court decision even before discovery is complete and the case in order for trial in the Superior Court, arises from defendants’ claim of a qualified … The constitutional issue and full factual situation are not posed as clearly or fully by the report in the case at bar as they were in Collett .

Bragg v. Burleigh

61 Me. 444 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1871

According to well established rules of interpretation, the meaning of a statute is to be sought first of all in the words and language employed. … When these are free from ambiguity, and clearly express the intent of the legislature, it is not allowable to resort to a subtle and forced construction in order to restrict or extend the meaning.

Groton v. Inhabitants of Waldoborough

11 Me. 306 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1834

It is to be presumed that the citizens will promote such men to office, as are best qualified to discharge the duties. … The case before us clearly belongs to the former, and not to the latter class. There are cases of payment upon compulsion of money unlawfully demanded, where no guilt is imputable to the party paying.

Asbury Life Insurance v. Warren

66 Me. 523 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 12, 1876

But the limits of the rule under discussion are so clearly laid down by Clifford, J., in his dissenting opinion in Insurance Co. v. Mosley, that it is unnecessary to pursue the discussion further. … It is also cited in many more modern cases with approbation and without any suggestions that the principles sustained are in any respect to be limited or qualified. In an earlier case that of Climer v.