Case law

State of Maine v. Brandon J. Coleman

2019 ME 170 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 23, 2019

Lawrence Ricci, a board-certified child-abuse pediatrician. Dr. … Brown, 321 A.2d 478, 482 (Me. 1974) (“Great latitude is allowed on cross-examination to show the special interests of an individual in testifying.”); cf. State v.

Shaw v. Small

124 Me. 36 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 22, 1924

By due court proceedings he was committed to the custody of the State Board of Children’s Guardians. … McNish v. State (Neb.), 104 N. W., 186 . State v. Thayer, (Wis.), 41 N. W., 1014 . Yale v. School Dist., (Conn.), 22 Atl., 295 . The Nebraska Statute is in all essentials like that of Maine.

Wytrwal v. Mowles

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

V at 34. b. Lander Leroy W. Lander, Jr. recalled attending a school board meeting in early 1992 at which a teacher discussed special education. Tr. Vol. V at 43. … V at 17. 18 . DeSimone testified that she did not recall talking to Voci about Wytrwal's presence at the school board meeting. Tr. Vol. V at 19. 19 .

Saco Defense System Division, Maremont Corp. v. Weinberger

606 F. Supp. 446 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 8, 1985

(quoting Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 429, 434 (3d Cir.1979). In the effort to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits the plaintiffs must overcome the “presumption of administrative regularity.” … Sea-Land Service, *452 Inc. v. Brown, 600 F.2d at 435 (3d Cir.1979). There has been no showing that the Army’s use of the 10% factor lacked a rational basis.

Abbott v. School Administrative District No. 53

762 A.2d 546 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 13, 2000

guidelines adopted by the board and either agreed to by the parties or determined by the board. … In 1998, the Board exercised its statutory authority pursuant to subsection 213(2) and adjusted the impairment threshold from 15% to 11.8%. See Me. W.C.B. Rule ch. 2, § 1. See Churchill v. Cent.

Stubbs v. State

281 A.2d 134 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 9, 1971

The single Justice relied upon State v. Phinney, 42 Me. 384 , and State v. … In State v.

Napp v. Parks Camp, Ltd.

932 A.2d 531 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 4, 2007

Yeadon Fabric Domes, Inc. v. Me. … App.1988); Balvik v. Sylvester, 411 N.W.2d 383, 385-88 (N.D.1987); Baker v.

Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Silsbee

159 Me. 6 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 18, 1963

Brown, 152 Me. 360, 368 . In Wilder v. … Wilder v. Butler, 116 Me. 389 , 396: Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Brown, 152 Me. 360, 378 .

Bean v. Central Maine Power Co.

133 Me. 9 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 21, 1934

Brown v. DeNormandie, 123 Me., 535, 541, (1924) 124 A., 697 . … Moor v. Shaw, 47 Me., 88; Miles v. United Box Board Co., 108 Me., 270, 80 A., 706 .

Frank v. Assessors of Skowhegan

329 A.2d 167 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 2, 1974

Schlaiker v. Board of Assessors, Great Barrington, Mass., 310 N.E.2d 602 (1974). … Schlaiker v. Board of Assessors of Great Barrington, Mass., 310 N.E.2d at 604 .

Bailey v. City of Lewiston

168 A.3d 762 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 20, 2017

Hird v. … See State v.

City of Portland v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

103 Me. 240 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 6, 1907

It is true that in Paris v. … In Telephone, Co. v.

State v. Smith

435 A.2d 408 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 5, 1981

State v. Lagasse, Me., 410 A.2d 537, 542 (1980), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2792 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). … See State v. King, Me., 379 A.2d 131, 133 (1977).

Boston & Maine Railroad v. Saco Valley Electric Railroad

98 Me. 78 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 18, 1903

That decree was afterwards changed by the board upon petition of the Maine Central Eailroad, and the court sustained the commission in its action. (Mamie Central R. R. Co. v. B. O. & O. Railway Co., 89 Maine, 555.) … No power is reserved to the board suo motu to modify or change a decision once made. In the case of the Maine Central R. R. Co. v. B. O. & O. Ry.

Grove Manufacturing Co. v. Jacobs

117 Me. 163 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 11, 1918

But in addition- to the assortment of goods the sale included a device *164 for the distribution of the goods, called a punch board. … The construction of our statute in its application to the decision of what constitutes a gambling device has been fully declared several times in this State and recently reviewed in the case of State v.

Russell v. Knox County

826 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 21, 1993

The case of Gordon v. Kidd, 971 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir.1992), at 1097, has the following to say about that: Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 [ 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ]; Partridge [v. … The testimony of William Brown is very nonspecific in particulars. The Court does not undertake to resolve, as it cannot on this motion, any question about the credibility of William Brown.

Cushing v. Wyman

38 Me. 589 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1854

Norton v. Young, 3 Greenl. 30. … The plaintiff cannot retain the note of Brown & McCrillis, which he received of the defendants, and at the same time enforce his claim for the horses, which he has admitted to have been paid by that note.

Dennett v. Dow

17 Me. 19 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1840

In Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. 179 , this was expressly held not to be in conflict with the general rule, and upon that ground admitted. In Whitaker v. … Salisbury, 15 Pick. 544, the court decide, that the party who calls a witness, shall not be permitted to impeach his general character, which they state was also decided in Brown v. Bellows .

Carter v. City of Augusta

84 Me. 418 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 31, 1892

Linneus v. Sidney, 70 Maine, 114; Smithfield v. Waterville, 64 Maine, 412. *422 The child was five years of age. The doctrine of Lamson v. Newburyport, 14 Allen, 80 , relied upon by defendant does not apply. … So in Knight v.

Kuhn v. State

254 A.2d 591 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 26, 1969

by subsequent action of the Board. … Shortly thereafter this Court, in Hartley v. State, Me., 249 A.2d 38 (1969), on precisely the same essential facts, decided most of the issues which this Petitioner was presenting on appeal.