Case law

Ingram v. Rencor Controls, Inc.

256 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 11, 2003

See Plaintiffs SDMF ¶ 66; Defendant’s SMF ¶¶ 86-87; Ingram Depo 56:8-25. 11 Clearly, the parties reached an agreement as to Plaintiffs salary for the year 2001, because his salary was increased from $102,131 in 2000 to $125,992 … Again, Plaintiff qualifies paragraph 66 of Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, but he does not dispute that he received such a salary increase in 2001.

Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Fish

738 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 24, 2010

Clark was “clearly ‘parking’ his truck ‘on the ways next to the premises’ on which the insured corporation maintained a separate building dedicated to its business.” Id. at 16-17. … Clark's affidavit and made a qualified response to the second sentence. Middlesex's Opposing Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 7-8 (Docket #16) (.POSMF). Thus, Middlesex admitted that Mr.

Ferraro v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

765 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 23, 2011

In this case, the parties agree that the applicability of ERISA preemption turns on whether the long term disability insurance purchased by Plaintiff qualifies as an employee welfare benefit plan. … Recognizing Defendants’ burden to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court finds the following facts to be established in connection with the Motion to Remand: 1 Since August 1, 2003, Defendant Unum Life Insurance

Judkins v. Saint Joseph's College of Maine

483 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 20, 2007

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION There is a well-established presumption against the extraterritorial application of a state’s statutes. See Rathje v. Scotia Prince Cruises, 01-123, 2001 WL 1636961 , at *9, 2001 U.S. Dist. … Therefore, unless there is the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed, we must presume it is primarily concerned with domestic conditions.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).

Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp.

973 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 23, 2013

Berry also notes that the timing of the invoices establishes they were not intended to be counteroffers. Id. … a contract for sale although the writing of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract.

United States v. Weidul

227 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 7, 2002

Pixley, 7 F.Supp.2d 52, 54-55 (D.D.C.1998) (warrantless search for weapon after couple was handcuffed did not qualify as “protective sweep” within meaning of Maryland v. … “It is the prosecution’s burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that consent was freely and voluntarily given; there must be more than mere acquiescence in the face of an unfounded claim of present lawful

MORIN

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 24, 2025

To prove a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish “a duty owed, a breach of that duty, and an 1 Title II prohibits such conduct by public entities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. … Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989), and under the doctrine of sovereign immunity exemplified by the Eleventh Amendment, states and state agencies may not be sued by citizens in federal court, regardless of the

MOORE v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 24, 2019

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must file an opposing statement in which it admits, denies, or qualifies the moving party’s statements by reference to each numbered paragraph, with citations to supporting … The purpose of this exception is “to avoid a manipulative litigant immunizing itself from suit indefinitely, altering its behavior long enough to secure a dismissal and then reinstating it immediately after.” Am.

Midwest Sign & Screen Printing Supply Co. v. Robert Dalpe & Laird Plastics, Inc.

386 F. Supp. 3d 1037 · District Court, D. Maine · May 10, 2019

The record does not contain evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. … But Andreadakis is distinguishable and does not establish that irreparable harm is likely here.

COPAN ITALIA SPA v. PURITAN MEDICAL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC

District Court, D. Maine · Nov 20, 2019

Perdana involved deponents who “clearly qualif[ied] as officers or managing agents” of the plaintiff. Perdana, 2010 WL 11475933, at *4, 8. … Roversi qualifies as a managing agent of one or both of the plaintiffs.

Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty

354 F. Supp. 3d 957 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 1, 2018

This factor does not weigh clearly in favor of any party. The Court previously determined that Prime does not stand to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. … But its determination that this information did not qualify as a trade secret was contingent on the particular facts of that case-specifically, "[t]he record [was] replete with evidence" that the PBMs "ha[d] taken no special

Bombardier Recreational Prods., Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.

331 F. Supp. 3d 902 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 7, 2018

BRP argues that the Hetteen prototype does not qualify as prior art as a matter of law because Arctic Cat relies solely on uncorroborated witness testimony. … BRP is correct that a single interested witness's uncorroborated testimony is legally insufficient *914 to establish an invalidating prior public use. Transweb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Props.

Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

402 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 5, 2005

As may be clearly seen some boxes are stored five high and, when the bottom portion of the display shelving is moved, the movement at the top shelf is exaggerated. … Dodge failed to explain allegedly inconsistent statements in the Preliminary Accident Investigation Report; and, (4) Wal-Mart’s merchandise-stacking guidelines failed to establish causation. Def.

Steele v. Thacher

22 F. Cas. 1204 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 15, 1825

But with these exceptions, the doctrine held by Lord Coke is supported by a series of judicial decisions in England, which decisively establish it as the law of that country. … By such a renunciation of the parental power the child becomes, in a qualified sense at least, independent and competent to act for himself.

GLADU v. MAGNUSSON

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 20, 2022

denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order, finding the verified complaint and the affidavit Plaintiff submitted in support of his motion “do not ‘clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss … Because Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits, there is no need to address the other factors in detail.

NICHOLAS v. CAMUSO

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 30, 2025

Legislature can, in separate enactments, adopt additional requirements to qualify for licensure. Id. at 12 (discussing Senty, 594 A.2d at 1069-70). … Nicholas’s argument that 5 M.R.S. § 5303 applies to his Maine guide application, he has not established a basis for relief from judgment.

SMITH v. DAEDONG-USA INC

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 26, 2020

While scientific testing is not necessarily required to establish reliability, see Quilez-Velar, 823 F.3d at 719, Smith must establish that Knowles’ reliance on the marketing brochures alone matches the “level … Citing scientific literature indicating that a change in volume of five decibels or more is “clearly noticeable,” ECF No. 41-47 at 10−11, Collins opines that the seven-decibel difference he measured would have been clearly

Mottram v. Murch

330 F. Supp. 51 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 5, 1971

Such a variance, if any, as occurred in Holds-worth’s testimony was clearly the result of the confusing and conflicting stories given by petitioner at the interview. … Clearly, petitioner was in no way prejudiced by the error in the judge’s charge of which he now complains. Contention E. Bias of the Trial Judge.

Esanbock v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

367 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 2, 2019

Buyer agrees that any individual claims that Buyer may wish to assert against Mattamy or qualifying agent must also be brought under these dispute resolution procedures. … Buyer agrees that any individual claims that Buyer may wish to assert against the Mattamy [sic] or its qualifying agent must also be brought under these dispute resolution procedures.

Tardiff v. Knox County

573 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 7, 2008

The First Circuit has held clearly that “convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees retain constitutional rights despite *304 their incarceration, including basic Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and … Because the lawsuit is against the County and based upon a County policy, I need not be concerned with qualified immunity and the reasonableness, if any, of Simmons' mistaken understanding.