Case law

Sayward v. Sayward

7 Me. 210 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1831

If Samuel had died under age and without issue, in the life time of Ebenezer, then it would clearly have been a good executory devise of the estate to him. … The court decided in favor of the demandant, and established his title. The second is the before cited case of Ray v. Euslin.

Gurski v. Culpovich

540 A.2d 764 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 1988

Clearly, the earlier malicious prosecution suit and the instant emotional distress suit involved the same parties. … They argue, however, that the evidence does not establish that their conduct was intentional or extreme and outrageous.

Cohen v. Ketchum

344 A.2d 387 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 19, 1975

Smith stated: “Our court has very clearly defined the limits of such right. … If a majority of the voters favored the status quo, a “no” vote by them would clearly maintain it; if the majority wished to increase the authorized indebtedness, their “yes” votes would establish the increase.

Thacher Hotel, Inc. v. Economos

160 Me. 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 4, 1964

Fifth — To invalidate a contract on the ground of public policy, the “impropriety of a transaction,” to use Professor Williston’s words, must be clearly established. 5 Williston, supra, § 1629A. Our court in Bell v. … The defendant has failed at the least to establish clearly any impropriety compelling the invalidation of the contract on grounds of public policy.

Burgess v. American Bond & Trust Co.

103 Me. 378 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 31, 1907

The only question, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs have established their claims by judgments against the principal defendant in his trust capacity, so as to fulfill the requirements of the statute. … The declarations should have clearly indicated by proper aver-ments that a suit against the defendant in the purely statutory capacity of surviving partner was intended, and the judgments should have been against him and

Walker v. Provost

566 A.2d 749 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 30, 1989

The Superior Court is required to accept the referee’s factual findings on these issues unless they are clearly erroneous. M.R. Civ.P. 53(e)(2). … The referee found Smart to be a qualified and expert surveyor and gave his testimony considerable weight. See Sargent v.

Soper v. Lawrence Bros.

98 Me. 268 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 11, 1903

The verdict of the jury establishing these facts was clearly warranted by the evidence. … If the acts enumerated are performed by one who “claims by virtue of a recorded deed to be the owner of the entire tract, and one who ,ias maintained such qualified possession for tAventy years in assertion of an exclusive

Dowley v. Morency

1999 Me. 137 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 27, 1999

four elements by clear and convincing evidence: 1) possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like; 2) actual or constructive notice to the adjoining landowner of the possession; 3) conduct … Campbell, 411 A.2d 667, 669 (Me.1980). 5 .The Dowleys argue that this finding was clearly erroneous because it reveals that the court based its judgment upon a remote, 1870 deed provided to the court in a large stack of “

Taylor v. Hill

464 A.2d 938 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 26, 1983

Those findings are clearly erroneous. Dr. … Friedman testified that he knew the standard of care applicable to a general surgeon, and the record establishes that he was qualified to testify about that standard.

Lane Construction Corp. v. Town of Washington

942 A.2d 1202 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 11, 2008

Under either anal *1209 ysis, the Planning Board permissibly rejected Lane’s application for the accessory permits. [¶ 21] The Town’s Land Use Ordinance defines “accessory uses” as those uses “clearly incidental and subordinate … Because the Planning Board lacks authority under the ordinance to impose fees after the fact, on an ad hoc basis, we vacate the Planning Board’s decision to impose fees beyond the established $50 permit fee. E.

State v. Therriault

485 A.2d 986 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 31, 1984

The party offering the record, defendant in the present case, must produce the custodian of the record, or “other qualified witness,” to establish the first three requirements listed above. State v. … Had the justice not made this ruling, defense counsel would have called the custodian of the records or other qualified *995 witness to establish a proper foundation for admission under Rule 803(6).

State v. Leavitt

625 A.2d 302 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 5, 1993

Clearly I can’t ask for the chemist if I don’t know there’s a drug analysis and, therefore, there’s something to request, ... … Leavitt also failed to request that the State be required to produce a qualified witness. 9 Based on the record before us, we find that Leavitt failed to establish that he suffered any prejudice to the level of depriving

State of Maine v. Abdirahmon A. Abdullahi

298 A.3d 815 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 27, 2023

[¶21] Under Maine Rule of Evidence 701, lay witnesses may provide testimony in the form of opinions or inferences as long as the testimony is “(a) [r]ationally based on the witness’s perception; and (b) [h]elpful to clearly … As to the testimony admitted without objection, Abdullahi does not contend that the court committed obvious error nor, in light of the clearly admissible evidence of Abdullahi’s guilt, do we see any. State v.

Bangor, Oldtown & Milford Railroad v. Smith

47 Me. 34 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1859

These proceedings clearly show an acceptance of the Act. Bank U. S. v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat., 64 . … These facts we must assume as established by legal evidence.

Kelley v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System

967 A.2d 676 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 12, 2009

December 2004, the medical board stated in memoranda to the executive director that “no functional limitations are considered warranted at this time” and “[t]here is not enough information in the recent medical records to establish … Tests concerning the issue of substantially gainful activity are clearly discretionary. 10 .

Beaulieu v. the Aube Corp.

796 A.2d 683 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 2002

City of Westbrook, 2001 ME 179, ¶ 6 , 787 A.2d 141, 143 (noting that the MTCA is a “‘limited relaxation’ of common-law sovereign immunity”); Ziegler v. American Maize-Prods. … The central purpose of the MTCA was to restore the common law sovereign immunity that had been abrogated by this Court in Davies v. City of Bath, 364 A.2d 1269 (Me. 1976).

Pat Doe v. Sam Roe

277 A.3d 369 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 28, 2022

BACKGROUND [¶4] The trial court record establishes the following facts and procedural history. See Doe v. Tierney, 2018 ME 101, ¶ 2, 189 A.3d 756. … Second, given the potential implications for future protection from abuse actions and the possibility that trial courts may come to different conclusions, this issue qualifies as a “major unsettled question of law” on

Magno v. Town of Freeport

486 A.2d 137 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 4, 1985

The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment in his favor as a matter of law. Atkins v. … In the instant case, the defendant’s supportive affidavits of the town manager-treasurer and of the town tax assessor fully qualified under Rule 56 to support summary judgment in favor of the town.

Patrick Langevin v. Allstate Insurance Company

66 A.3d 585 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 4, 2013

As we stated clearly in Jacobi v. … Vigna did not establish that emotional distress always constitutes “bodily injury” when determining whether an insurer has a duty to indemnify.

Inhabitants of Phillips v. Inhabitants of Kingfield

19 Me. 375 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1841

It is however a well established rule, that no particular acts of immorality or crime can be stated. … It assumes, that it was clearly established by the proof, that the husband had no control over the members of his family when the supplies were furnished; and if he had no such control, the instruction was fully authorized