Case law

Powers v. Maine School Administrative District No. 1

359 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, D. Maine · May 25, 1973

They challenge on equal protection grounds the allocation of seats on the board of directors of the District and seek reapportionment of the board by application of the “one person, one vote” principle of Wesberry v. … School Board of Wyoming Valley, 332 F.Supp. 982 (M.D.Pa.1971); Dameron v. Tangipahoa Parish Police Jury, 315 F.Supp. 137 (E.D.La.1970); Oliver v.

Maine Central Railroad v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

663 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 3, 1987

Sun Oil Co. v. … V.

Doe v. School Administrative District No. 19

66 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 31, 1999

See Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 , 119 S.Ct. 1661, 1676 , 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). Within the context of Title IX, a student’s claim of hostile environment can arise from a single incident. Brown v. … In Davis v. Monroe Cty., Board of Ed., - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1661 , 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999), the hostile *64 environment arose out of a male student's repeated harassment of a female student.

Keene v. Rodgers

316 F. Supp. 217 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 5, 1970

The requirements of due process in student disciplinary proceedings have been fully discussed by several courts, e. g., Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961); Moore v. … v.

United States v. Quattrucci

329 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 9, 1971

He contends that the failure of the local board thus to consider and act upon these letters invalidated his induction order. The basis of his position is United States v. … Defendant does not contend that the Board acted improperly in failing to act on this post-indictment claim. Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99 , 91 S.Ct. 1319 , 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (April 21, 1971) ; United States v.

Smith v. Gordon

22 F. Cas. 554 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 2, 1843

Jur. § 540, note 2, § 547; Thompson v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 620 , 631), if in point of fact such is not the decree most usually made ( 4 Johns. Ch. 631, 638 ; Martin v. Martin, 1 Ves. Sr. 211; Douglas v. … Clay [1 Dickens, 393], cited in 10 Ves. 40; Brooks v. Reynolds, 1 Brown, 183).

Sucrest Corp. v. M/V Jennifer

455 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 11, 1978

Cartwright was issued a First Mate’s Foreign Going License by the British Board of Trade in 1958. … . § 1304 (2)(q); Nichimen Company, Inc. v. M/V Farland, 462 F.2d 319, 329 (2d Cir. 1972); M. W. Zack Metal Co. v. S. S.

United States v. Quinn

633 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 21, 1986

v. … Illinois, 422 U.S. at 602 , 95 S.Ct. at 2261 (iquoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Both Brown and Elstad are cases about subsequent statements.

Kropp Ex Rel. Kropp v. Maine School Administrative Union 44

471 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 10, 2007

Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 402 F.Supp.2d 303, 308 (D.Me.2005). … In Coffin v.

Hanson v. W. L. Blake & Co.

155 F. 342 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 3, 1907

Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S. 654, 664 , 17 Sup. Ct. 453, 41 L. Ed. 865 ; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1235. … Brown, who holds them under a gift from Brown, and, therefore, subject to such lien, if any, attached to them in the hands of Brown?

Dobson v. Dunlap

576 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 16, 2008

See Fulani v. … Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 742 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). The voters assert in Count One that the Secretary’s refusal to accept Ms.

Coastwise Transp. Corp. v. United States

43 F.2d 401 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 8, 1930

In Consolidated Coal Co. v. … In Burr v.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.

731 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 8, 1990

Webber v. … State v. Edward C., 531 A.2d 672, 673 (Me. 1987).

United States v. Hensel

509 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 20, 1981

United States v. Rose, supra; United States v. Morrow, supra; Stonehill v. United States, supra at 743. Cf. Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74 , 69 S.Ct. 1372 , 93 L.Ed. 1819 (1949); Byars v. … Lustig v. United States, supra; Byars v. United States, supra. 3.

Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Ogunquit

175 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 12, 2001

Co. v. Zoning Board, 197 F.3d 64, 70 (3d Cir.1999). … See, e.g., Brehmer v. Planning Board, 238 F.3d 117, 121-22 (1st Cir.2001) (award of injunctive relief, rather than remand, appropriate remedy for violation of TCA); Patterson v.

United States v. Blackwell

310 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 1970

United States v. Stoppelman, supra (Local Board need not consider post-induction date conscientious objector claim); United States v. Ruel, Crim. … Since the Board made no such finding in this case, no reopening could occur. The Board could not and did not reopen defendant’s classification. Accord: Petersen v.

Saco Defense System Division, Maremont Corp. v. Weinberger

606 F. Supp. 446 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 8, 1985

(quoting Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 429, 434 (3d Cir.1979). In the effort to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits the plaintiffs must overcome the “presumption of administrative regularity.” … Sea-Land Service, *452 Inc. v. Brown, 600 F.2d at 435 (3d Cir.1979). There has been no showing that the Army’s use of the 10% factor lacked a rational basis.

United States v. Berg

310 F. Supp. 1157 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 1970

Blalock v. United States, 247 F.2d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 1957). … If the Board’s action was predicated upon either of these grounds, it would be a clear error of law, vitiating the entire proceeding. United States v.

Russell v. Knox County

826 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 21, 1993

The case of Gordon v. Kidd, 971 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir.1992), at 1097, has the following to say about that: Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 [ 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ]; Partridge [v. … The testimony of William Brown is very nonspecific in particulars. The Court does not undertake to resolve, as it cannot on this motion, any question about the credibility of William Brown.

United States v. Shevenell

310 F. Supp. 1069 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 1970

The Board’s denial of conscientious objector status on this basis was a clear error of law. Since United States v. … Sicurella v. United States, supra; United States v. Carroll, supra; Owens v. United States, supra; Gatchell v. United States, supra; United States v. Hawley, supra.