Case law

State Y. M. C. A. v. Picher

8 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 19, 1934

Brown or Mr. Smith. … Brown, the treasurer, and Mr.

Inhabitants of Porter v. Griswold

6 Me. 430 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1830

See also Brown v. Porter, 10 Mass. 93 ; Harrison v. Bridgton, 16 Mass. 16 ; 3 Dane’s Abr. ch. 76, art. 10, sec. 20. The law as to parsonage lands is familiar. … Weston v. Hunt, 2 Mass. 500 ; First Parish in Brunswick v. Dunlap, 7 Mass. 445 ; Brown v. Porter, before cited; Shapleigh v. Gilman, 13 Mass. 190 ; Austin v. Thomas; 14 Mass. 333 .

Ingerson v. State

448 A.2d 879 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 4, 1982

See State v. Hilton, Me., 431 A.2d 1296 (1981). … State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 329 , 184 A.2d 225, 228 (1962) (citing State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954)).

Little v. Knowlton Machine Co.

840 A.2d 97 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 6, 2004

See D'Amato v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 116, ¶¶ 7-8 , 832 A.2d 794, 798-99 (discussing the situation of Hearing Officer Johnson who was not reappointed). … Although we held in D’Amato v. S.D.

Hustus' Case

123 Me. 428 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 12, 1924

Lough v. Acc. Comm., 104 Or., 313 , 207 Pac., 354 ; O’Esau v. Bliss Co., (N. Y.), 177 N. Y. S., 203; Cooke v. Holland Furnace Co., 200 Mich., 192 , 166 N. W., 1013 . … Hornbrook-Price Co. v. Stewart, (Ind.), 118 N. E., 315 . “The injury took place—when the rupture manifested itself and not—when he strained himself.” Brown’s Case, 228 Mass., 38 .

Chasson v. Sovereign Camp

127 Me. 151 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 14, 1928

In Brown v. … In Brown v.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Stevens

123 Me. 368 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 1, 1924

It follows logs sawed into boards and returns them to the owners. Wingate v. Smith, 20 Maine, 287. … Morrell v. Kimball, 1 Maine, 324; Hall v. Houghton, 37 Maine, 411; Brown v. Osgood, 25 Maine, 511; State v. Knight, 43 Maine, 135, citing Bradley v. Ricardo, 8 Bing., 220.

Livingstone v. A-R Cable Services of Maine

2000 Me. 18 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 4, 2000

AFSCME Council 93 v. City of Portland, 675 A.2d 100, 102 (Me.1996); see also Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co., 395 A.2d 1107, 1122 (Me.1978). … See Kuvaja v. Bethel Sav. Bank, 495 A.2d 804, n. 3 (Me.1985).

Pleasant View Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. Town of Mechanic Falls

538 A.2d 273 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 3, 1988

In reviewing this appeal to determine whether the decision of the Mechanic Falls Zoning Board of Appeals was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, Marchi v. … Duryea v. Elkhorn Coal and Coke Corp., 123 Me. at 486 , 124 A. at 208 ; Doherty v. Russell, 116 Me. at 273 , 101 A. at 306-307 .

Morse v. Laverdiere's Super Drug Store

645 A.2d 613 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 1, 1994

We affirm the decision of the Board in Morse and vacate the decision of the Appellate Division in Fee-ney. I. Morse v. … In Comeau v.

Lightfoot v. Matthews

587 A.2d 462 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 5, 1991

See Caron v. Bangor Publishing Co., 470 A.2d 782, 784 (Me.1984); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566, comment c (1977). Moreover, when read in context, the letter does not convey a defamatory message. See Bakal v. … I would be glad to discuss this matter with your board at your request.

Hoglund v. Aaskov Plumbing & Heating

895 A.2d 323 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 26, 2006

Recently, the full Board unanimously ruled that mediation agreements are binding. Gross v. Hannaford Bros. Co., Dec. No. 95-01, WCB #93-009561 (Me.1995). … The Legislative History referred to in Bureau v.

Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army

108 A.3d 1265 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 22, 2015

See Toomey v. … See Hall v.

Local 1837, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Maine Public Service Co.

579 F. Supp. 744 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 26, 1984

National Labor Relations Board v. C & C Plywood Corp., 385 U.S. 421, 427-28 , 87 S.Ct. 559, 563-64 , 17 L.Ed.2d 486 (1967). See William E. Arnold Co. v. … The Company does not deny that the Board so held, see n. 8, infra, nor does it contend that the holding was unwarranted. See United Steelworkers of America v.

Green v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services

776 A.2d 612 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 6, 2001

She argues that, pursuant to Pelkey v. … Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 448 A.2d 272, 279 (Me.1982).

McLellan v. Hayford

72 Me. 410 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1881

In support of the instructions, the plaintiff relies upon the cases of Aldrich v. Brown, 103 Mass. 527 ; Perry v. Lord, 111 Mass. 504 ; Pierce v. Parker, 121 Mass. 403 ; and Eggleston v. … Eggleston v. Boardman, simply affirms the doctrine declared in Aldrich v. Brown , with the additional remark that " retainers are uniformly' and universally charged, and may be recovered under the common counts.

York Golf and Tennis Club v. Tudor Ins. Co.

845 A.2d 1173 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 9, 2004

Francis Reilly and Dana Foster were elected to the board, but the club held a recount, which resulted in the removal of Reilly and Foster from the board of directors. … Corp. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., No. 93-15326, 1994 U.S.App. LEXIS 35911, at **9, 15-17 (9th Cir.

Maine v. Shalala

81 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 29, 1999

See, e.g., U.S. v. … Welfare v. Secretary of Agric., 984 F.2d at 523-24 ; Eagle Eye Fishing Corp. v. United States Dep’t. of Commerce, 20 F.3d at 503 (1st Cir.1994). IV.

Beaulieu v. Dirigo Housing Associates

648 A.2d 968 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 21, 1994

Soule v. StiNSon Canning Co., 537 A.2d 1152 , 1153 n. 2 (Me.1988). … See Soule, 537 A.2d at 1152 ; Wood v. Cives Constr. Corp., 438 A.2d 905, 909 (Me.1981); Mathews v. R.T. Allen & Sons, 266 A.2d 240, 243 (Me.1970).

State v. Giles

669 A.2d 192 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 3, 1996

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 653-55 , 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1690-91 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). The resolution of this case is controlled by U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 , 103 S.Ct. 2573 , 77 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983). … Moreover, we have not adopted an exclusionary rule for illegal search and seizure beyond that mandated by Mapp v. Ohio. See e.g. State v. Tarantino, 587 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Me.1991).