Case law

Yonkers Contracting Co. v. Maine Turnpike Authority

24 F.R.D. 205 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 17, 1958

But, beyond the foregoing admissions and denials, general or qualified, defendant in its answer to plaintiff’s count 1, makes these affirmative allegations or contentions: A. … Rule 56 itself provides pretty clearly the basis for the granting of motions tendered under it.

Rankin v. RIGHT ON TIME MOVING & STORAGE, INC.

223 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 16, 2002

Summary judgment should be granted “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at … Allstate's counsel's failure to informally negotiate a settlement with Attorney Greif at this juncture was clearly with just cause in the context of this litigation. 4 . The case plaintiffs rely on, Riethmiller v.

Wuori v. Concannon

551 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 6, 1982

With limited exceptions, the services performed by plaintiffs’ attorneys during the periods covered by the present motions clearly fall within the rule of the above cases: A. … The record establishes beyond contravention that the efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel were a “necessary and important factor,” Nadeau v.

United States v. Adams

473 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 8, 2007

essential allegations and raising a host of affirmative defenses, including lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, ripeness, abstention, justiciability, unclean hands, sovereign immunity … The PUC’s Motion to Dismiss The PUC originally argued that the United States’ Complaint should be dismissed, because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Orders of the Maine PUC. 8 This argument is clearly erroneous.

United States v. Manning

361 F. Supp. 3d 839 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 2, 2019

Qualified law-enforcement testimony "about the extent to which pedophiles retain child pornography" should be given "substantial weight" in probable-cause determinations. Lemon , 590 F.3d at 615 . … "So powerful ... that no governing precedent of the Supreme Court or [the Eighth Circuit] ... holds that a person was in custody after being clearly advised of his freedom to leave or terminate questioning."

GLADU v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 8, 2022

In addition, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants Wellpath and Ritter do not staff the MSP with enough qualified mental health providers. (Id. ¶¶ 109-14.) … In addition, Local Rule 56 establishes how parties must present their factual statements and the evidence on which the statements depend.

BAYLEY'S CAMPGROUND INC v. MILLS

District Court, D. Maine · May 29, 2020

immunity to prevent them from transmitting the virus. … See Opposition at 13- 14 (noting the “scientific uncertainty” surrounding issues like immunity, communicability, and testing).

ROSS v. NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LLC

District Court, D. Maine · May 14, 2024

This “monetary har[m]” readily qualifies as a concrete injury in fact. … I observe that insofar as Ross purports to bring Count II under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36 (as opposed to under RESPA), courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether that regulation establishes a private right of action

Harding v. Cianbro Corp.

498 F. Supp. 2d 344 · District Court, D. Maine · May 2, 2007

As the case law clearly provides, “chronological proximity will not by itself establish causality where the larger picture undercuts any claim of causation.” Eaton v. … Cianbro claims: [T]he jury ... clearly adopted [the expert’s] findings. [The expert] testified that he included stock grants in his estimate of Plaintiffs income losses.

GIRARD v. DODD

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 2, 2019

SECTION 1983 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs who are deprived by governmental actors acting under color of law of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured … It has been the opinion of this court that “the Legislature clearly did not intend for this expanded statute of limitations to revive claims that were already ‘barred by the previous statute of limitations in force’ prior

GLADU v. WALTZ

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 30, 2020

Prison Administrative Coordinator, reviewed the decisions regarding the books and on behalf of the Warden, responded to the letter as follows: “Media Officer’s decision to deny your books is final[,]” because the material clearly … custom, or usage, of any State …, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

COMMEAU v. MAGNUSSON

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 27, 2021

respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim− (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim …; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Wytrwal v. Mowles

886 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, D. Maine · May 5, 1995

Alternative education is a program designed for students who are having difficulty in school, but who do not technically qualify for special education. Tr. Vol. I at 79. … Plaintiff later argues evidence to establish pretext. 53 .

SWENSON v. FALMOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 29, 2020

Both Flaherty and Gleason believed her to be qualified. … With respect to retaliation, the record clearly establishes the first and second elements of the claim, but Defendant urges that it does not support the third, causation.

EPPICH

District Court, D. Maine · May 15, 2026

Claiborne may be imputed to establish Mr. … Eppich drove qualify as “motor carriers” for purposes of the MCA exemption. 2020) (“Noll I”); see also 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(a). Here, both FedEx and the ISPs for which Mr.

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 1-9 v. S.D. Warren Co.

382 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 24, 2005

Sappi repeatedly *139 denied, qualified, or objected to PACE’s statements of material fact and PACE did the same responding to Sappi’s statements of material fact. … If the parties wish to limit the arbitral issues, particularly if the limits are not clearly delineated in the labor agreement, they need to document with precision what the limits are.

Harding v. Cianbro Corp.

473 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 11, 2007

upheld the imposition of prejudgment interest on a punitive damages award, but the ruling is not binding, because the defendant failed to preserve the issue and the Court concluded that the defendant’s argument was not “so clearly … Although Albemarle addressed discrimination under Title VII, its statement of goals appears equally applicable to the ADA, especially since the remedies under the ADA are *95 established by reference to Title VII.

WYMAN v. UNITED STATES SURGICAL CORPORATION

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 22, 2020

Wyman’s qualified response. from the Orrington Plant.3 DSMF ¶ 11; PRDSMF ¶ 11. … The facts establish that, even though Mr.

United States v. Douglas

746 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 27, 2010

a base offense level of 32, and other offense levels are established by extrapolating upward and downward. … Some may escape the mandatory minimums by qualifying for the safety valve; some will benefit from the new ratios because their sentences are and will remain above the statutory minimums anyway.

MARTINEZ v. CAESAR

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 6, 2019

A complaint or claim is “factually frivolous only if the facts are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” … “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.