Case law

Chapman v. City of Rockland

524 A.2d 46 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 13, 1987

Durepos v. Town of Van Buren, 516 A.2d 565, 566 (Me.1986). A dispatcher is the community’s link with emergency services. … Have exclusive authority to remove for cause after notice and hearing till persons whom he is authorized to appoint and report all removals to the board of selectmen.

May v. City of Auburn

112 Me. 143 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 9, 1914

general and comprehensive clause: “And do all professional acts incident to the office or which may be required of him by the mayor, city council or either branch thereof, or any committee thereof, or any administrative board … Calais v.

Weymouth v. Inhabitants of Gorham

22 Me. 385 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1843

But the indebtedness of the town for the board and clothing of Lombard, who had his legal settlement therein, is to the plaintiff for his own private benefit, and not in trust, for any other. … The case of York v. Penobscot, 2 Greenl. 1, is in point to show that the objection, which might otherwise have been taken, was waived. But the objection much relied upon is, that the suit was not seasonably commenced.

State v. Bornstein

107 Me. 260 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 2, 1910

So in Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. … The question again arose in State v.

Bowman v. Pinkham

71 Me. 295 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1880

Burrough v. Philcox, 5 Mylne & Craig, 92. "Tbe principle of that case, Pierson v. Garnet, 2 Bro. C. C. 38; and of Richardson v. Chapman, 7 Bro. P. … Brown v. Higgs, 8 Vesey, Jr. 574.

Williams v. New England Mutual Fire Insurance

31 Me. 219 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1850

Co. v. Cotheal, 7 Wend. 72 ; Snyder v. The Farmers’ Ins. and Loan Co. 13 Wend. 92 ; S. C. 16 Wend. 481 ; 2 Hall, 608 . … Dobson v. Sotheby, 1 Moo. & Mal. 90; Shaw v. Robberds, 6 Ad. &. El. 75; Grant v. Howard Ins. Co., 5 Hill, 10 .

Trask v. Public Utilities Commission

731 A.2d 430 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 22, 1999

An emergency meeting of the Board of Trustees of the District was held on March 29, 1998, at which the Board discussed and accepted Trask’s offer. … See, e.g., Great Hill Lake, Inc. v.

Peaks v. Hutchinson

59 L.R.A. 279 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 29, 1902

See also Wentworth v. Wentworth, 69 Maine, 247. It is true that in Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Maine, 542, 41 L. R. … Russell v. Richards, 10 Maine, 429, 25 Am. Dec. 254 ; Hilborne v. Brown, 12 Maine, 162, and Tapley v.

Lovejoy v. Grant

434 A.2d 45 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 24, 1981

Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. … See Mack v. Cape Elizabeth School Board, 553 F.2d 720 (1st Cir. 1977). Even if Lovejoy had a contract, therefore, she was not deprived of any property right if her termination came at the end of that contract.

State v. Barnies

680 A.2d 449 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 25, 1996

In People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513 , 522 N.Y.S.2d 837 , 517 N.E.2d 515 (1987), the New York Court of Appeals considered the question of the effect of a police officer’s direct inquiry on a statement’s reliability. … In State v.

Connor v. Inhabitants of Southport

136 Me. 447 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 9, 1940

Browne, inhabitants of the town of Southport in our County of Lincoln, and pursuant to the provisions of R. … Taylor v. Caribou, 102 Me., 401 at 405, 67 A., 2 . For, as said by Emery, J., in Cummings et al. v.

Fortin v. Wilensky

142 Me. 372 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 19, 1947

Snowman v. Harford, 55 Me., 197, 199; Fisk v. Williams, 75 Me., 217; Telegraphone Corp. v. Telegraphone Co., 103 Me., 444, 69 A., 767 ; Dalton v. Callahan, 122 Me., 178, 187, 119 A., 380 ; Colbath v. … Jur., 89 , 92, 93, Pars. 73, 75, 76; Brown v. Boston & Maine R. R., 106 Me., 248, 255, 76 A., 692 . In this case the record shows that credibility of witnesses was most important.

State v. Jewell

285 A.2d 847 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 10, 1972

Brown, 1956, 102 Ohio App. 113 , 141 N.E. 2d 686 ; State v. Mayfield, 1959, 235 S.C. 11 , 109 S.E.2d 716 , cert. denied 363 U.S. 846 , 80 S.Ct. 1616 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1728 ; State v. … State v. Hume, 1951, 146 Me. 129 , 78 A.2d 496 ; State v. Morey, 1927, 126 Me. 323 , 138 A. 474 . In State v.

State v. Bohemier

96 Me. 257 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 5, 1902

The defendant, a resident of tliis state, was indicted for practicing medicine and surgery for hire within this state without being registered by tbe State Board of Begistratiou of Medicine and Surgery as required by c. 170 … Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454 ; State v. Maine Central R. R. Co., 60 Maine, 488. II.

V. S. H. Realty, Inc. v. Gendron

338 A.2d 143 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 21, 1975

Lippoth v. Zoning Bd. of App., City of So. Portland, 311 A.2d 552 (Me. 1973); Moyer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 233 A.2d 311 (Me.1967). … Wright v. Superintending Sch. Com., City of Portland, 331 A.2d 640 (Me. 1975); In Re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736 (Me. 1973).

Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court

153 Me. 216 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 22, 1957

would be for the best educational interest of the pupils involved, and the second paragraph of Section 111-H relative to the-power to make changes in the number of school directors, delegate legislative power to the State Board … V, Part First, Sec. 9. The Act in question was duly enacted by the Legislature, approved by the Governor, and is presently in full force and effect as a law of our State.

John B. DiSanto & Sons, Inc. v. City of Portland

848 A.2d 618 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 6, 2004

DiSanto and Sons, Inc. appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Humphrey, J.) affirming a decision of the City of Portland’s Zoning Board of Appeals interpreting the city’s land use ordinance … 619 applied for a bunding permit to construct a single-family dwelling on the lot. [¶4] Despite DiSanto and Sons, Inc.’s attempt to distinguish this case from our precedents, the issue is resolved by our ruling in Farley v.

Penley v. Edwards

129 Me. 156 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 27, 1930

The Court in Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company v. McCurdy, 121 Me., at page 112, says, “This statute is in derogation of the common law and should be stx-ictly construed. … See also a later case, Sawyer v. Hillgrove, 128 Me., at page 233.

Inhabitants of East Machias v. Inhabitants of Bradley

67 Me. 533 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 30, 1877

On November 19, 1875, the plaintiffs commenced their action against the defendants for the “amount of expense paid for board, clothing, attendance and medical aid furnished William Trafton, jr., a pauper from June 10, 1874 … Sidney v. Augusta, 12 Mass. 316 . Walpole v. Hopkinton, 4 Pick. 358 . Uxbridge v. Seekonh, 10 Pick. 150 . Hallowell v. Harwick, 14 Mass. 186 . Cummington v. Wareham, 9 Cush. 585 .

Parent v. Eastern Maine Medical Center

884 A.2d 93 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 26, 2005

See, e.g., Buckley v. Nat’l Freight, Inc., 90 N.Y.2d 210 , 659 N.Y.S.2d 841 , 681 N.E.2d 1287, 1290 (1997); Brown v. Metzger, 104 Ill.2d 30 , 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302, 304 (1984); Butz v. … See Rosander v.