Case law

JAY CASHMAN, INC. v. Portland Pipe Line Corp.

559 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 18, 2008

Defendant's Reply SMF ¶ 48; Sept. 17 Brown Dep. at 37-39. 28 . … Defendant's Reply SMF ¶ 53; Sept. 17 Brown Dep. at 74. 38 .

Keatinge v. Biddle

188 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 21, 2002

of Overseers of the Bar v. … Hodsdon, 690 A.2d 986, 989 (Me.1997); Board of Overseers of the Bar v.

New England Accessories Trade Ass'n v. Tierney

528 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 7, 1981

Browne, 502 F.Supp. 1245 (D.Conn.1980); Florida Businessmen for Free Enterprise v. Florida, 499 F.Supp. 346 (N.D.Fla.1980). … See The Casbah, Inc. v. Thone, supra, 651 F.2d at 561 n.14; New England Accessories Trade Ass'n v. Browne, supra, 502 F.Supp. at 1253-54 ; Mid-Atlantic Accessories Trade Ass'n v.

The Moravian

17 F. Cas. 725 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 15, 1877

In Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. [53 U. S.] 272, the bill of lading was substantially of a similar character. … The rule of law laid down in the Exchequer, Scott v. London & St. K.

Rowe v. Maine

324 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 2, 2004

Mental incompetence is not a per se reason to toll the statute of limitations, Brown v. McKee, 232 F.Supp.2d 761, 767 (E.D.Mich.2002); see also, Nunnally v. … Appx. at 760 ; Brown, 232 F.Supp.2d at 768 ; Williams v. Price, 2002 WL 551037 , *5 (E.D.Mich. March 29, 2002).

State of Maine v. M/V Tamano

357 F. Supp. 1097 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 26, 1973

In McCready v. … Should the Maine statute be declared unconstitutional, the Board’s claim under it in the present case would, of course, also fall. 4 .

Nichols v. Land Transport Corp.

103 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 9, 1999

Browning Ferris Ind. Of Puerto Rico, 160 F.3d 839, 841-42 (1st Cir.1998) (quoting National Amusements v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 735 (1st Cir.1995)). … Lyons v. Brown, 158 F.3d 605, 609 (1st Cir.1998).

Maine Central Railroad v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

650 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 22, 1986

Union Pacific R.R. v. … Krieter v. Lufthansa German Airlines, Inc., 558 F.2d 966, 968 (9th Cir. *618 1977); Order of Railway Conductors v.

New England Explosives Corp. v. Maine Ledge Blasting Specialist, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 1343 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 9, 1982

Gainesville v. Brown-Crummer Investment Co., 277 U.S. 54, 59 , 48 S.Ct. 454, 455 , 72 L.Ed. 781 (1928); Merritt v. Bowdoin College, 169 U.S. 551, 556 , 18 S.Ct. 415, 417 , 42 L.Ed. 850 *1346 (1898); Thompson v. … Bateson Co. v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586, 589 , 98 S.Ct. 873, 875 , 55 L.Ed.2d 50 (1978).

Stanton by Stanton v. Brunswick School Dept.

577 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 23, 1984

McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 , 83 S.Ct. 1433 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963); see also Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 , 93 S.Ct. 1689 , 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973); Carter v. … Keyishian v.

Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Ingraham

228 F. 392 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 11, 1915

On the 2d day of August, 1915, the board of mayor and aldermen of the city of Portland passed the following order: “City of Portland, Maine. In Board of Mayor and Aldermen. “August 2, 1915. … A reference to Owensboro v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company, 230 U. S. 58 , 33 Sup. Ct. 988, 57 L.

Mead v. INDEPENDENCE ASS'N

714 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 2010

IA’s Board of Directors (“Board”) decided not to appeal. The Board hired an outside investigator to look into the handling SF’s situation, including the findings contained in the Statement. … See Doe v. U.S.

Small v. Gilbert

56 F.2d 616 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 3, 1932

He avers that, so far as he is concerned, the whole transaction was honest and above board, and that he believes the same to be true on the part of Mary Baskett. … Brown v. J. Wayland Kimball Co., 84 Me. 492 , 24 A. 1007 .

Pratt v. Thomas

19 F. Cas. 1262 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 30, 1837

Orne v. Townsend [Id. 10,583]. … Ward v. Duke of Northumberland, 2 Ansr. 472; West v. Randall [Case No. 7,424].

Hall v. Maine Municipal Employees Health Trust

93 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 15, 2000

Feinstein v. … Inc. v. State Board of Ins., 957 F.2d 178 , 185 n. 9 (5th Cir.1992) (citing DOL Op. No. 86-08a at 4 (Feb. 3, 1989); DOL Op. No. 84-11 at 3 (February 22, 1984); DOL Op.

Portland Terminal Co. v. Foss

283 F. 204 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 29, 1922

Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 Fed. 912 , 28 C. C. A. 99 ; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Switchmen’s Union (C. C.) 158 Fed. 541 . In Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310, 318, 319 , 11 C. C. A. 209 , 218 (25 L. R. A. 414), Mr. … St. § 1243d; Duplex Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443 , 41 Sup. Ct. 172, 65 L. Ed. 349 , 16 A. L. R. 196; Kinloch Telephone Co. v. Local Union Number 2 (C. C. A.) 275 Fed. 241 .

Good v. Altria Group, Inc.

436 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, D. Maine · May 25, 2006

Based on Cipollone v. … See Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 363 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir.2004); Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 260 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2001); Brown v.

United States v. Ponte

246 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 27, 2003

See Wallis v. Pan Am. … Robillard et al., Brown’s Boundary Control and Legal Princi- *79 pies 45 (1995)). The method has been advocated since at least the late 18th century. Curtis M. Brown & Winfield H.

Rosborough v. Rossell

56 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 28, 1944

United States v. Grimley, 137 U.S. 147 , 11 S.Ct. 54 , 34 L.Ed. 636 . … I have no doubt of that right (see United States v. Mackenzie, D.C., 30 Fed.Cas., No. 18,313), but the only question before me is whether the court-martial had jurisdiction. United States v. Grimley, supra.

Mohamed v. Sec'y Dep't of Homeland Sec.

376 F. Supp. 3d 950 · District Court, D. Maine · May 25, 2018

See Reid v. Donelan , 819 F.3d 486 , 500 (1st Cir. 2016) ; Sopo v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , 825 F.3d 1199 , 1215 (11th Cir. 2016) ; Leslie v. Attorney Gen. of U.S. , 678 F.3d 265 , 269 (3d Cir. 2012) ; Diop v. … An order for removal becomes final "when the alien's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) is unsuccessful or the alien declines to appeal to the Board." Nken v.