Case law

Gorham v. Town of Cape Elizabeth

625 A.2d 898 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 11, 1993

standards, see Stucki v. … Bass v. Town of Wilton, 512 A.2d 309, 310 (Me.1986).

Perrin v. Town of Kittery

591 A.2d 861 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 20, 1991

When acting in direct judicial review, a court may not make findings independent of those explicitly or implicitly found by the Board or substitute its judgment for that of the Board. Id., Driscoll v. … See Sibley v. Inhabitants of the Town of Wells, 462 A.2d at 31 ; Barnard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 313 A.2d 741, 747, 749 (Me.1974); cf. Marchi v.

Stone v. Locke

46 Me. 445 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1859

. *446 The bill alleges that on the 21th of October, 1849, Brown & Bunker mortgaged the premises, sought to be redeemed, to the defendants, to secure their notes given for the same; that, on October 2, 1850, Brown & Bunker … J., in Cushing v. Ayer, 25 Maine, 383, “must be believed to be to obtain a statement of the precise sum due, so that a tender could be made which would be accepted.” In Allen v.

Larrivee v. Timmons

549 A.2d 744 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 1, 1988

See Maine Isle Corp. v. Town of St. George, 499 A.2d 149, 152 (Me.1985) (where town board acts on the substance of a proposal, that proposal is pending for purposes of section 302); Littlefield v. … Plaintiffs challenged the Planning Board’s decision to grant final subdivision approval, but this court upheld the Planning Board’s action in Larrivee v. Timmons, 525 A.2d 1037 (Me.1987) (mem.).

Town of Southwest Harbor v. Harwood

763 A.2d 115 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 14, 2000

just value and to grant “such reasonable abatement as the board thinks proper.” 36 M.R.S.A. § 843(1); accord City of Biddeford v. … Id,.; see also McCullough v.

Waltman v. Town of Yarmouth

592 A.2d 1079 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 13, 1991

On appeal from the Superior Court’s decision in a Rule 80B appeal of a zoning board’s action, we review directly the action of the zoning board. Leadbetter v. Ferris, 485 A.2d 225, 227 (Me.1984). … Because the Waltmans bore the burden of proof before the Board, we cannot disturb the Board’s findings of fact unless the Board was compelled to find in the Waltmans’ favor. See Perrin v.

Veilleux v. City of Augusta

684 A.2d 413 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 28, 1996

Enos v. Town of Stetson, 665 A.2d 678, 680 (Me.1995) (citing Buker v. Town of Sweden, 644 A.2d 1042, 1043 (Me.1994). … Herrick v. Town of Mechanic Falls, 673 A.2d 1348, 1349 (Me.1996). The Planning Board’s decision was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

Wyman v. Town of Phippsburg

976 A.2d 985 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 28, 2009

Griswold v. Town of Denmark, 2007 ME 93, ¶ 9 , 927 A.2d 410, 414 (quotation marks omitted); see also Gensheimer v. … See, e.g., York v. Town of Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , ¶ 4 n. 4, 769 A.2d 172, 174 . [¶ 13] We do not read section 1.6 of the Ordinance to impose a setback requirement requiring a variance from the Board of Appeals.

Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley

659 A.2d 280 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 31, 1995

Perrin v. Town of Kittery, 591 A.2d 861, 868 (Me.1991). See also Sibley v. … See Power v.

Yates v. Town of Southwest Harbor

763 A.2d 1168 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 5, 2001

Town of Sedgwick, 2000 ME 157, ¶ 4 , 757 A.2d 773, 775 , for “error of law, abuse of discretion or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record,” Sproul v. … In Stewart v. Town of Sedgwick, for example, we reviewed the statute authorizing municipalities to establish boards of appeal, 30-A M.R.S.A. § 261(3)(D) (1996), and Sedg-wick’s zoning ordinance.

George Brackett v. Town of Rangeley

831 A.2d 422 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 25, 2003

Thus, we review directly the May 23, 2001 decision of the Rangeley Zoning Board of Appeals. [¶ 16] We construe an ordinance in accordance with its objectives. Griffin v. … Gagne v. Lewiston Crushed Stone Co., Inc., 367 A.2d at 618-19 . Subsequently, in Wright v.

Foley v. H. F. Farnham Co.

135 Me. 29 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 8, 1936

S., Chap. 26, Sec. 19; Cole v. Sprowl, 35 Me., 161; Dickey v. Maine Telegraph Company, 46 Me., 483; Brown v. Watson, 47 Me., 161; Veazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me., 479; Gerrish v. Brown, 51 Me., 256; Davis v. … Pillsbury v. Brown, 82 Me., 450, 19 A., 858 .

Bodack v. Town of Ogunquit

909 A.2d 620 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 7, 2006

Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 22, ¶ 16 , 868 A.2d 161, 166 . B. … Kimball v. Land Use Regulation Comm’n, 2000 ME 20, ¶ 26 , 745 A.2d 387, 394 .

State v. Trusiani

854 A.2d 860 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 13, 2004

Boyington, we applied a five-part test developed by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. … Brown, 422 U.S. at 604 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 (emphasis added). [¶ 25] In State v.

Town of Mount Vernon v. James Landherr

2018 ME 105 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 24, 2018

United States v. … Co. v.

MacK v. MUNICIPAL OFF. OF TOWN OF CAPE ELIZABETH

463 A.2d 717 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 29, 1983

The burden of persuasion in the Rule 80B action rests on the Macks, as the parties seeking to overturn the Board’s decision. See Seven Islands Land Co. v. … Although the Board could not have validly based its decision against the Macks solely upon its “visceral” reaction to the project, V.S.H. Realty, Inc. v.

Henry Banks v. Maine RSA 1

721 A.2d 655 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 19, 1999

Fitanides v. City of Saco, 684 A.2d 421, 422 (Me.1996) (citing Enos v. Town of Stetson, 665 A.2d 678, 680 (Me.1995)). The meaning of a term contained within an ordinance is a question of law, subject to de novo review. … See Gerald v. Town of York, 589 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Me.1991). A court must interpret an ordinance “by first looking at the plain meaning of the language to give effect to legislative intent.” Clarke v.

Peirce v. Bent

69 Me. 381 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 1879

Mitchell v. Oldfield, 4 Term Rep. 123. Glaister v. Hewer, 8 T. R. 69. Barker v. Braham, 2 W. Black. 869. Simpson v. Hadley, 1 M. & S. 696. Bridges v. Smith, 8 Bing. 29. Goodenow v. Buttrick, 7 Mass. 140 . Greene v. … New Haven Copper Co. v. Brown, 46 Maine, 418. Chit. Gen. Prac., Title, Set-off. Howe’s Prac. 350. 2 Par. on Con., Title, Set-off, 242. Brown v. Hendrickson, Am. L. Reg. for Oct., 1877, 619.

Carter v. Clark

92 Me. 225 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 3, 1898

The shore line extends from Mayo’s lot to Brown’s lot. The side lines are “Brown’s and Mayo’s lines.” And the inland end boundary is “ Cockle’s lot.” II. … Brown v. Haven, 12 Maine, 164; Wing v. Burgis, 13 Maine, 111; Emery v. Webster, 42 Maine, 204; Abbott v. Abbott, 51 Maine, 575; Simpson v. Blaisdell, 85 Maine, 199. III.

Cushing v. Smith

457 A.2d 816 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 10, 1983

Brennan v. R.D. Realty Corp., 349 A.2d 201 (Me.1975).” … Stanton v. Trustees of St. Joseph’s College, 233 A.2d 718, 724 (Me.1967).