Case law

Hammer v. Office of the Maine Secretary of State

Superior Court of Maine · Sep 28, 2010

Long-established rules of statutory construction obligate this Court to construe Maine statutes through the lens of giving "effect to intent of the Legislature." Knutson v. … This proposed certification method clearly contradicts plain language of2 l-A MRS § 354(7)(C) and does not constitute a ground upon which Hammer might be entitled to relief in the M.R. Civ.

Bruno v. Corrado

Superior Court of Maine · Mar 31, 2015

"At this step, the moving party (i.e., the defendant) 'carries the initial burden to show that the suit was based on some activity that would qualify as an exercise of the defendant's First Amendment right to petition … As acknowledged by defendants' own case, dismissing the claim "would be an unduly harsh sanction for failure to plead specific information not yet clearly required by Maine law." Monahan v.

Daniel G. Lilley Law Office v. Flynn

Superior Court of Maine · May 5, 2014

Because the MOU fails to clearly provide how fees will be apportioned for the Flynn cases, this court denies Flynn's cross- motion for summary judgment. … "The exclusivity and immunity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act bar employees from pursuing civil litigation against their employers for injuries incurred in the course of employment." Li v.

State of Maine v. Dumas

Superior Court of Maine · Mar 19, 2009

Dumas clearly invoked his right to counsel on several occasions during the two interviews conducted at the Penobscot County Hospital. … The only statement that might qualify as incriminating was 7 Mr.

Addy v. Jenkins, Inc.

Superior Court of Maine · Jun 11, 2007

As a result, the plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case of negligence. … The requirements for compliance with support of an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are clearly spelled out in M.R. Civ. P. 56.

Bodge v. Maine Public Employees Retirement Sys.

Superior Court of Maine · May 31, 2017

Houston,5 who made the diagnoses, "did not clearly delineate signs and symptoms fully consistent with either of these conditions in his notes." (R. 54.13.) … In addition, the Medical Board again concluded, "the records [did] not clearly support the existence of anxiety and severe depression as of November 13, 2013." (R. 54.13.) D.

Christie v. Bellows

Superior Court of Maine · Dec 21, 2023

Christie failed to meet the signature threshold established by Maine law, which required him to submit a minimum of 2,000 certified signatures from registered Republican voters. Mr. … Sept. 28, 2010) (finding that petitioner's "proposed certification method clearly contradicts the plain language of' 21-A M.R.S. § 354(7)(C), which provides that the "registrar ... of each municipality concerned" shall

FLP Energy Maine Hydro LLC v. Maine Dept. of Enviro. Prot.

Superior Court of Maine · Apr 22, 2005

Factual determinations must be sustained unless shown to be clearly erroneous. … Next, FPL argues that DEP waived certification altogether by failing to do so w i h n the one year deadline established by federal statute. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a).

Sultan Corp. v. Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2023

The court acting in an appellate capacity will not vacate an agency’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Suzman v. Comm’r, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 2005 ME 80, 24, 876 A.2d 29. … This qualifying phrase strikes the court as significant, especially in light of the fact that the Board consistently omits “dealing with the hazardous substances” from its citations of § 1365(1)(B), and because § 1365(5)

Harvey v. Dow

Superior Court of Maine · Dec 14, 2007

However, although she had had her sights set on the fifty-acre parcel, the evidence does not clearly establish whether the parcel is even located on that parcel or the adjoining seventy-five acre parcel. … In this regard, the penultimate full sentence on page 4 of the Decision and Judgment should read, "...the evidence does not clearly establish whether the residence is even located on that [50-acre] parcel or the adjoining

Smith v. Cent. Maine Power Co.

Superior Court of Maine · Nov 14, 2008

The boatyard is clearly an "area used for rigging and launching sailboats." … Smith clearly has accident-related neurological deficits, and he struggles with accident-related depression.

Old Town Utility & Technology Park, LLC. v. Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc.

Superior Court of Maine · Nov 5, 2020

The Court is not aware of any Law Court case ever adopting the “plausibility” standard 4 and declines to do so until the Law Court clearly states that it is the law in Maine. … The removal of the “on information and belief” qualifiers to allegations regarding bribing Page and the reformulation of many of these same allegations later in the proposed amended complaint “on information and belief” “

Violette v. Town of Winslow

Superior Court of Maine · Jun 11, 2004

concluding that defendant Poulin’s use of his property is not “truck and heavy equipment repair, sales and service.” 4, The ZBA erred in concluding that the uses that defendant Poulin is making of this property that do not qualify … Plaintiff asserts that this letter when taken in conjunction with Winslow’s town attorney’s letter of April 7, 2003, is clearly “in regard to permits.”

West v. Jewett & Noonan Transportation, Inc.

Superior Court of Maine · Sep 27, 2017

The Maine Law Court has adopted the Second Restatement's six-factor test for determining whether an activity qualifies as "abnormally dangerous" for purposes of imposing strict liability. See Dyer v. … Third, Plaintiffs argue that, Lmder the § 161 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, "it is well established that an intentional failure to remove property from land is sufficient to establish the necessary intent even if

Parker v. Town of Winthrop

Superior Court of Maine · May 4, 2010

Application to Rebuild the Bunkhouse The plaintiffs next argue that the ZBA erred by concluding that the original bunkhouse did not qualify under section 2.3.34 of the Ordinance as a non-conforming structure that … Although the public interest concern might be a proper ground for the denial in this case, the ZBA disposed of this application based on its conclusion that undue hardship was not established. ago at 71.).

Lowry v. Beardsley

Superior Court of Maine · Sep 29, 2015

Elizabeth Lowry, however, is clearly not an employee of the Firm. Mr. Lowry also questions what would happen, under the Agreement, if he quit as an "employee." Would the payments cease? Finally, Mr. … Lowry does not qualify as a salaried employee as a matter of law. (See Agreement~ 2 (discussing Mr.

Zemco Industries, Inc. v. FCW Technologies, Inc.

Superior Court of Maine · Jan 20, 2004

To avoid a judgment as a matter of law for a defendant, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of her cause of action. See Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me. 1995). … To the contrary, Kirschner notes that where a document specifically references the negligence of the party seeking immunity, such reference is sufficient to extinguish negligence liability. See Lloyd v.

Welch v. State of Maine

Superior Court of Maine · Jan 19, 2006

However, the September 3, 1977 Foster letter would potentially be admissible under M.R.Evid. 803 (16) if authenticity could sufficiently be established under M.R.Evid. 901(b)(8) or otherwise. … On a motion for summary judgment, a party who has the burden of proof must present enough evidence to establish that there are disputed issues of fact on each element of the claim.

Total Fitness, Inc. v. Finlandia Sauna Prod., Inc.

Superior Court of Maine · Oct 12, 2006

Further, Plaintiff argues that by serving a request for admissions upon Plaintiff, Harvia "clearly manifested its intent to participate in the ongoing litigation [and] . . . submitted to the jurisdiction of tlus Court. … The parameters for how the litigation is going to proceed with Harvia as a party have already been established through a revised scheduling order.

Cianchette v. Cianchette

Superior Court of Maine · Jun 28, 2021

Additionally, the liability “clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Id. … Defendants’ general plan to value the business, transfer its assets, and distribute payment to PET’s members qualifies as a Capital Transaction.