Case law

Toomey v. Town of Frye Island

2008 Me. 44 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 11, 2008

Yates v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2001 ME 2, ¶ 10 , 763 A.2d 1168, 1171 . A court will not substitute its judgment for that of a board. Greenberg v. DiBiase, 637 A.2d 1177, 1178 (Me.1994). … Boards have inherent authority to revisit their own decisions. Cardinali v. Town of Berwick, 550 A.2d 921, 921 (Me.1988).

Greeley v. Greeley

119 Me. 264 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 9, 1920

Bourne v. Ward, 51 Maine, 191; Small v. Clewley, 62 Maine, 156; Morrison v. Brown, 84 Maine, 82; Palmer v. Palmer, 112 Maine, 149; Palmer v. Blanchard, 113 Maine, 380. But defendant offered evidence tending otherwise. … Bank v. Curtis, 167 N. Y., 194 . A note upon consideration payee would provide maker a home as long as he lived was held valid, notwithstanding that the maker also paid a weekly sum for board.

State v. Patten

436 A.2d 387 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 30, 1981

This case falls squarely within the holdings of State v. Blais, Me., 416 A.2d 1253 (1980), and State v. Hassapelis, Me., 404 A.2d 232 (1979), and is controlled thereby. … State v. Blais, supra, at 1257 . See also Robbins v. California, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2841 , 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981) (No. 80-148).

Thurston v. Nutter

125 Me. 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 24, 1926

He and his wife treated the defendant kindly, gave her good board and care and the relations were harmonious until the last of the following June. … Prior to the plaintiff’s coming to the farm the defendant wrote down on a piece of brown paper some terms for agreement, as she testified “as it come to me.”

Carroll v. Town of Rockport

837 A.2d 148 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 26, 2003

Rockport Subdivision Ordinance § V, Rockport Land Use Ordinance §§ 703.3, 703.4. See also Lewis v. … In Chapel Road Associates v.

State v. Patten

457 A.2d 806 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 8, 1983

See State v. Dunlap, 395 A.2d 821, 824 (Me.1978). … In Dunlap itself, this court, citing United States v.

Mills v. Town of Eliot

955 A.2d 258 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 28, 2008

Boisvert v. … See Tinsman v.

Chapel Road Associates, L.L.C. v. Town of Wells

2001 Me. 178 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 27, 2001

(quoting Maine AFL-CIO v. Superintendent of Ins., 595 A.2d 424, 428 (Me.1991)); see also Harrington v. … from stated conclusory facts, see Wells v.

Fletcher v. Feeney

400 A.2d 1084 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 26, 1979

Poulin v. Poulin, Me., 241 A.2d 611, 612 (1968); Bove v. Board of Review of City of Newport, 95 R.I. 197 , 185 A.2d 751, 752 (1962); Long v. Zoning Commission, supra, 50 A.2d at 174-175 . … Fordham Manor Reformed Church v. Walsh, 244 N.Y. 280 , 155 N.E. 575 (1927). See also Girouard v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Oct. 2, 1972, York County Docket No. 2549 (Glassman, J.)

Peter Beckford v. Town of Clifton

107 A.3d 1124 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 31, 2014

See Davric Maine Corp. v. … . [¶ 12] In Carroll v.

Estate of Wilson

828 A.2d 784 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 18, 2003

The will ended with paragraph LASTLY, which expressed the hope that Francis Brown would be retained as legal counsel by the executor. … Lord v. Soc’y for the Pres. of New England Antiquities, Inc., 639 A.2d 623, 624 (Me.1994). A court may resort to extrinsic evidence to discern the intention of the testator if the will is ambiguous. Maietta v.

Shackford & Gooch, Inc. v. Town of Kennebunk

486 A.2d 102 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 31, 1984

The opponents appeared before the Board and as abutting landowners demonstrated they would suffer particularized injury as a result of the Board’s action. See Harrington v. … On review of an action taken by a zoning board of appeals, we may not make factual findings independent of those of the board, nor may we substitute our judgment for that of the board. Mack v.

Norris Family Associates, LLC v. Town of Phippsburg

879 A.2d 1007 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 25, 2005

State v. … Davric Maine Corp. v. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., 2000 ME 102, ¶ 6 , 751 A.2d 1024, 1028 (quoting Hodgdon v. United States, 919 F.Supp. 37, 38 (D.Me.1996)); see also York v.

Mark Tomasino v. Town of Casco

237 A.3d 175 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 7, 2020

whose action or nonaction may be appealed to the board.”); Casco, Me., Code § 215-9.36(G)(1) (stating that the Board has the power to decide only “[a]dministrative appeals” and “[v]ariance appeals”); Cope v. … v.

Hammatt v. Emerson

27 Me. 308 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1847

Brown, 8 Bing. 33, were decided. … In the case of Corbett v. Brown, 8 Bing. 33, a new trial was granted on the principle, that *329 fraud or intentional deceit must be inferred from a representation known to be false, by him who made it.

Donald R. Paradis v. Town of Peru

115 A.3d 610 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 7, 2015

Dubois Livestock, Inc. v. Town of Arundel, 2014 ME 122, ¶ 9, 103 A.3d 556; see Eliot Shores, LLC v. Town of Eliot, 2010 ME 129, ¶¶ 5-10, 9 A.3d 806; Farrell v. City of Auburn, 2010 ME 88, ¶¶ 6-18, 3 A.3d 385. … of the merits of the matter.5 See Hopkinson v.

Kelley v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System

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

Hale-Rice v. Me. State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64, ¶ 17 , 691 A.2d 1232, 1237 (quoting Douglas v. Bd. of Trs. of the Me. State Ret. Sys., 669 A.2d 177, 179 (Me.1996)). B. … In Rodriques v.

Daniel Raposa Jr. v. Town of York

2019 ME 29 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 26, 2019

Salisbury v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2002 ME 13, ¶ 11, 788 A.2d 598. [¶8] In 2010, we cited Herrle when we decided Farrell v. City of Auburn, 2010 ME 88, 3 A.3d 385, and Shores v. … Because the Board conducted a de novo review of the CEO’s determination, we review the Board’s decision directly. See Yates v. Town of Sw. Harbor, 2001 ME 2, ¶ 10, 763 A.2d 1168; Stewart v.

Raposa v. Town of York

204 A.3d 129 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 26, 2019

Salisbury v. Town of Bar Harbor , 2002 ME 13 , ¶ 11, 788 A.2d 598 . [¶8] In 2010, we cited Herrle when we decided Farrell v. City of Auburn , 2010 ME 88 , 3 A.3d 385 , and Shores v. … Because the Board conducted a de novo review of the CEO's determination, we review the Board's decision directly. See Yates v. Town of Sw. Harbor , 2001 ME 2 , ¶ 10, 763 A.2d 1168 ; Stewart v.

Forbes v. Town of Southwest Harbor

763 A.2d 1183 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 16, 2001

. [¶ 15] In City of Calais v. … City of Calais v.