Case law

Malonson v. Town of Berwick

853 A.2d 224 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 23, 2004

Malonson v. Town of Berwick, 2003 ME 148, ¶ 1 , 838 A.2d 338, 338 . On remand, the Board found that the project otherwise qualified for a use permit, 2 and the Superior Court then declared its earlier judgment final. … Maritime Energy v. Fund Ins. Review Bd., 2001 ME 45, ¶ 7 , 767 A.2d 812, 814 . Review of a board’s interpretation of a municipal zoning ordinance is de novo. Isis Dev. v.

State v. Maine State Employees Ass'n

538 A.2d 755 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 23, 1988

See Lynch v. Town of Kittery, 473 A.2d 1277, 1279 (Me.1984); State v. Gleason, 404 A.2d 573, 578 (Me. 1979). … See State v. Maine Labor Relations Board, 413 A.2d 510, 515 (Me.1980).

Dow v. Bradley

110 Me. 249 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 22, 1913

Fisher v. *252 Shaw, 42 Maine, 32, 39; Chase v. McLellan, 49 Maine, 375; Stetson v. Everett, 59 Maine, 376; Brown v. Lawton, 87 Maine, 83. … Brown v. Lawton, supra. In Schroeder v. Young, 161 U. S., 334, 344 , the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking by Mr.

Marton v. Town of Ogunquit

759 A.2d 704 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 2, 2000

DeSomma v. Town of Casco, 2000 ME 113, ¶ 7 , 755 A.2d 485, 487 . … (quoting Gerald v.

Loud v. Kezar Falls Woolen Co.

1999 Me. 118 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 27, 1999

See Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 639 A.2d 626, 627-28 (Me.1994); Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Constr. Corp., 612 A.2d 874, 879 (Me.1992); DeMello v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 611 A.2d 985, 986 (Me.1992). … See Ray v.

Given v. Gould

39 Me. 410 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1855

The case of Sherman v. … Ev. § 147, note (1;) Thompson v. Stevens, 2 Nott & McCord, 493; Holladay v. Littlepage, 2 Munf. 316 ; Prather v. Johnson & al., 3 Har. & John. 487.

Olson v. Town of Yarmouth

Superior Court of Maine · Mar 15, 2017

Gorham v. Androscoggin County, 2011 ME 63 ,r 19, 21 A.3d 115. … See State v. Brown, 2014 ME 79 ,r 14, 95 A.3d 82. Equitable estoppel applies whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional. E.g., Mrs. T. v.

Tuscan v. Smith

130 Me. 36 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 23, 1931

Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S., 601 . … Blood v. Beal, 100 Me., 30; Reynolds v. Waterville, 92 Me., 292; Eaton v. Thayer, supra. If therefore the action of the selectmen of the Town of Skowhegan in giving the lease here in question to Myron E.

Frank v. Manpower Temporary Services

687 A.2d 623 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 24, 1996

Fowler v. First Nat’l Stores, Inc., 416 A.2d 1268 , 1260 (Me.1980) (quoting Landry v. Bates Fabrics, Inc., 889 A.2d 311, 313 (Me.1978)). … Though we agree the employee must offer evidence to establish his or her average weekly wage, White v.

Poland v. The Spartan

19 F. Cas. 912 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 1, 1828

Brown v. Moates, Holt, Shipp, p. 276. The generality of this language must be received with several exceptions. … Taylor v. The Cato [Case No. 13,786], and Weeks v. The Catharina Maria [Id. 17,351], cited at the bar, were cases of this mixed character.

Inhabitants of Orono v. Bangor Railway & Electric Co.

105 Me. 428 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 1, 1909

Holmes v. Paris, 75 Maine, *434 559. "The real meaning of a statute is to be ascertained and declared, even though it seems to conflict with the words of the statute.” Landers v. Smith, 78 Maine, 212. … Justice Walton in Railroad Co. v. Street Ry. Co., 89 Maine, 328, page 335.

Livermore Falls Trust & Banking Co. v. Riley

108 Me. 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 20, 1911

Woodbury v. Gardner, 77 Maine, 68. In such a case "the defendants are estopped to set up the statute of frauds in defense.” Low v. Low, 173 Mass. 580 . In 4 Pom. Eq. … See also McGuire v. Murray, 107 Maine, ( 77 Atl. 692 ), and Bank v. Marston, 85 Maine, 488. In Harrisburg Bank v.

National Organization for Marriage v. McKee

723 F. Supp. 2d 236 · District Court, D. Maine · May 23, 2010

See Blom Decl. ¶ 4; Brown Deck ¶ 4. … The plaintiffs argue that, as in Perry and Dole v.

Bradley v. Warren

104 Me. 423 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 7, 1908

This question arose upon a closely analogous provision of the will in Taylor v. Brown, 88 Maine, 56. … Brown and Nellie Washburn, children of my wife’s sister.”

Darney v. Dragon Products Co., LLC

994 A.2d 804 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 11, 2010

Brown v. Crown Equip. … See Adams v.

Owen v. Boyle

22 Me. 47 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 15, 1842

The same doctrine is fully recognized by the Court of King’s Bench, in the ease of Brown v. Shevill, 2 Adol. & Ellis, 138, and the authority of the cases before cited fully confirmed. Matthias v. … Gibson, in the case of Brown v.

Maine Rubber International v. Environmental Management Group, Inc.

324 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 14, 2004

See Williams v. Ubaldo, 670 A.2d 913, 918 (Me.1996) (citing Forbes v. Wells Beach Casino, Inc., 409 A.2d 646, 654 (Me.1979); Susi v. Simonds, 147 Me. 189, 190-91 , 85 A.2d 178, 178-79 (1951); Hadley v. … Rep. 341. (1854)); Rubin v. Matthews Int’l Corp., 503 A.2d 694, 696 (Me.1986) (citing Winship v. Brewer School Comm., 390 A.2d 1089, 1095 (Me.1978); Susi, 85 A.2d 178 ).

Sanger v. County Commissioners of Kennebec

25 Me. 291 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1845

be annulled by one of the boards acting separately. … Rex v. Merchant Factor’s Co. 2 B. & Ald. 115. These authorities, which are believed to be in accordance with others upon the same subject, contain the general rule of the common law upon this point.

Jade Realty Corp. v. Town of Eliot

946 A.2d 408 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 8, 2008

Gensheimer v. Town of Phippsburg, 2007 ME 85, ¶ 8 , 926 A.2d 1168, 1170 ; Marion v. Town of Ogunquit, 2000 ME 166, ¶ 6 , 759 A.2d 704, 706 . … Bodack v. Town of Ogunquit, 2006 ME 127, ¶ 12 , 909 A.2d 620, 624 (quoting Kimball v.

Gendreau v. Tri-Community Recycling

705 A.2d 1106 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 26, 1998

Decisions of the Board interpreting the Workers’ Compensation Act are entitled to deference unless the statute plainly compels a contrary result. Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358, 360 (Me.1994). … As we recently held in Ray v.