Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersmesuperct

1,749 results

0.92s

  • Penobscot Shoe Co. v. McCulloch

    Superior Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2003

    .”); Piedmonte v. … Balsamides v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • State of Maine v. Mason

    Superior Court of Maine · Nov 1, 2016

    United States v. Jordan , 112 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1997). 5. The ·sheer n umber of charges or the possibility of juror confusion is not inherently prejudicial, State v. Brown, 1998 ME 129. 6. … See State v. 'Eastman, 1997 ME 39, P9, 691 A.2d 179, 182; State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 919, 920-921 (Me. 1995); State v. Webster, 2000 ME 115; State v. Morrison, 2015 ME 153. 7.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • 48 Bramhall St. Condo. Assn. v. Stone

    Superior Court of Maine · Jun 13, 2014

    Moore, Inc. v. Les-Care Kitchens, Inc., 2007 ME 138, <[ 24, 931 A.2d 1081; ABN AMRO Mortgage Group v. Willis, 2003 ME 98, <[ 5, 829 A.2d527. … s Tab 2 at 1.)1 Anne Dalphin was Secretary of plaintiff's Executive Board and became President in October 2012. Defendant was President of the Board prior to Ms. Dalphin.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Sadowski v. Department of Environmental Protection

    Superior Court of Maine · Nov 30, 2005

    McKenzie v. Maine Employment Security Comm'n, 453 A.2d 505 (Me. 1982). The time limits found in the APA are jurisdictional and cannot be waived. Brown v. … State Dep't of Manpower A#airs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981); Persson v. D q ' t of Human Services, 2001 ME 124, 775 A.2d 363. In the present case, the petitioner simply failed to meet the time period by four days.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Higgins v. City of Portland

    Superior Court of Maine · Nov 27, 2001

    HIGGINS, _ Petitioner v. … DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the City of Portland Zoning Board of Appeals is VACATED and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Stewart v. University of Maine System

    Superior Court of Maine · Sep 18, 2023

    Defendant's refund offered to students like Plaintiff covered only unused portions of the fee paid towards the student's room and board. See, e.g., Mot. for Class. Cert. Ex. … Tobin v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Conte v. Town of York

    Superior Court of Maine · Oct 5, 2017

    AP-17-009 LUKE CONTE, Plaintiff v. … Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • McBreairty v. Porter

    Superior Court of Maine · Jan 7, 2022

    See, e.g., Doe v. Williams, No. CV-06-113, 2011 Me. Super. … Ten Citizens ofthe Town ofBiddeford v. Town ofBiddeford, 2003 ME 59, 15,822 A.2d 1196.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Green v. Lawrence

    Superior Court of Maine · Oct 1, 2004

    GREEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. JUDGMENT JAMES H. … Defendant James Lawrence, president of the corporation, filed for the necessary approval from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Town Planning Board.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Smith v. Southern Maine Community College

    Superior Court of Maine · May 31, 2005

    See Arnett v. Kennedy, 4 16 U.S. 134, 15 1 (1974); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972); Slochower v. … Board of Higher Education of New York City, Petitioner's affidavit offers a competing version of the process he was given by SMCC.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Maine Employers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hutton

    Superior Court of Maine · Nov 14, 2007

    GARBRECHT v. … S Yarmouth Lumber has provided the court with a copy of the Superior Court's decision in Hanover Insurance Co. v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Goodell v. N.V. Michel Van de Wiele SA

    Superior Court of Maine · Jul 27, 2010

    See Brown v. Crown Equip. … Brown, 2008 ME 186, ~ 14, 960 A.2d at 1193. VDW owed Flemish a duty to provide a reasonably safe, non-defective product. Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932, 941 (Me. 1982).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Richter v. Ercolini

    Superior Court of Maine · Jan 6, 2009

    SUSANNE RICHTER Plaintiff ORDER v. … Truman v. Browne, 2001 ME 182, CJI 9, 788 A.2d 168, 170. The Law Court has held that " [t]here is a strong preference in our law for deciding cases on the merits. Thomas v. Thompson, 653 A.2d 417,420 (Me. 1995).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Lowell

    Superior Court of Maine · Jul 9, 2014

    First, in Raymond v. … See Poussard v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Cole v. Dow

    Superior Court of Maine · Oct 31, 2016

    tlllells v. Qui1m, 890 A.2d 713 (Mc. 2006). … Brown D9.~~lo mcm Con . Ilnmmond 956 A.2d 104 (l\·1e. 2008).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Cashout, LLC v. Hall

    Superior Court of Maine · Aug 30, 2022

    STANDARD OF REVIEW The Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA") reflects a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16; Nfarmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530,533 (2012). … VIP., Inc. v. First Tree Dev., 2001 ME 73, 14, 770 A.2d 95.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Bittues v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n

    Superior Court of Maine · Jul 29, 2013

    Cotton v. Maine Emp 't Sec. Comm'n, 431 A.2d 637,640 (Me. 1981). … See Snell v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm 'n, 484 A.2d 609, 61 0 (Me. 1984).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Mohamud v. State of Maine

    Superior Court of Maine · Mar 8, 2012

    WIOHAwiUD, Petitioner, V. … See Brown v. State, 426 A.2d 880, 888 (:tvle. 1981) (stating "expressly that the [:tvlaine Administrative Procedure] Act's time limitations are jurisdictional"); see also City of Lewiston v. Me.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Town of Turner v. Whitman

    Superior Court of Maine · Mar 29, 2006

    Whitrnan apparently appealed CEO Marble's hIay 19, 1998 order to the Tuner Board of Appeals. l'hat Board did not act on the appeal, but apparently allowed Mr. … I11 Tozu~of Po7utzal v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Picker v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot.

    Superior Court of Maine · Apr 6, 2002

    DEP relies upon Murray v. Inhabitants of the Town of Lincolnville, 462 A.2d 40 (Me. 1983) and Southridge Corp. v. … Murray involved an action by property owners challenging the action by the Maine Board of Environmental Protection and the Lincolnville Planning Board granting permission to an individual to construct a condominium development

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.