Case law

United States v. Hutchinson

26 F. Cas. 446 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 15, 1868

S. v. Winn [Id. 16,740]. … As laid down in Schieffelin v.

City of Auburn v. Union Water Power Co.

90 Me. 71 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 2, 1897

Wilder, 11 Cush. 294 ; Commonwealth v. Brown, 147 Mass. 592 . … Christ's Church v. Woodward, 26 Maine, 172; Fossett v. Bearce, 29 Maine, 523 ; Allen v. Archer, 49 Maine, 346; Brown v. Witham, 51 Maine, 29 ; Clark v. Wardwell, 55 Maine, 66; Hamilton v. Phipsburg, 55 Maine, 193.

State v. Cook

2 A.3d 313 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 19, 2010

Brown, 2000 ME 25, ¶ 15 , 757 A.2d at 772 (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). … State v.

United States v. Sargent

150 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 12, 2001

See United States v. … See United States v. Brown, 251 F.3d 286, 293 (1st Cir.2001).

Pennell v. City of Portland

124 Me. 14 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 18, 1924

State v. Shannon, (Mo.), 33 S. W., 1137 ; Baltimore v. Lyman, (Md.), 48 Atl., 145 ; U. S. v. Schlierholz, 137 Fed., 622 ; Throop v. Langdon, 40 Mich., 673 . … Gen. v. Drohan, 169 Mass., 534 ; State v. Mackie, (Conn.), 74 Atl., 759 ; Coms. v. Goldsborough, (Md.), 44 Atl., 1055 ; Patton v.

Marston v. Marston

54 Me. 476 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1867

Clark v. French, 23 Maine, 221; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Maine, 139. Bean, for the plaintiff. Vose, for the defendants. … In cases like Houston v. Jordan, 35 Maine, 521, Low v. Marco, 53 Maine, 45, and Howe v.

Stone v. Thorbjornson

656 A.2d 1211 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 10, 1995

The Board denied Stone’s motion for findings of fact, and we granted appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 822 (Supp.1994). The issue of employment status is a mixed question of fact and law. Timberlake v. … Our review of a Board decision determining employment status is deferential. Bean v. Alrora Timber, Inc., 489 A.2d 1086, 1087 (Me.1985).

Baston v. Robbins

153 Me. 128 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 15, 1957

By implication, at least, the Parole Board acquired authority to parole the petitioner at the expiration of the minimum term of his imprisonment. He was released by the Board on January 14, 1956. … Stroud v. Johnston, 139 F. R. (2nd) 171.

Clukey v. Piscataquis County Sheriff's Department

696 A.2d 428 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 4, 1997

Ashby v. Rust Eng’g Co., 559 A.2d 774, 775 (Me.1989). … Mushero v. Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co., 683 A.2d 504, 506 (Me.1996).

Susi v. Davis

134 Me. 308 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 11, 1936

S., Chap. 118, Sec. 6; Rule V, Supreme Judicial and Superior Courts; Brown v. Webber, 103 Me., 60, 61, 68 A., 456 ; Hazen v. Wright, 85 Me., 314, 27 A., 181 ; Billings v. Gibbs, 55 Me., 238; Colburn v. … Lunt v. Brown , 13 Me., 236; Freeman v. Rankin, 21 Me., 446; Jones v. Smith, 79 Me., 446, 10 A., 254 . Title to the land from which the goods were taken is not necessarily in issue.

Inhabitants of Skowhegan v. Heselton

117 Me. 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 13, 1917

This proceeding is based upon two bills in equity by the Inhabitants of the Town of Skowhegan v. Martin B. … Andrews v. King, 74 Maine, 224. They are not the agents of the town. Hamlin v. Biddeford, 85 Maine, 308.

Dubois v. Madison Paper Co.

795 A.2d 696 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 4, 2002

We defined the clear and convincing standard in Taylor v. … See Mathieu v. Bath Iron Works, 667 A.2d 862, 864 (Me.1995).

Toothaker v. Lauri, Inc.

631 A.2d 1241 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 6, 1993

In Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Constr. … Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176, 1179 (Me.1989). In this instance Toothaker’s claim was accepted, and the memorandum of payment reflects the level of weekly compensation at the rate for total incapacity.

Gay v. Dube

39 A.3d 52 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 8, 2012

See R.S. ch. 18, §§ 18-19, 21 (1857); 23 M.R.S. §§ 3021-23 (2011); Inhabitants of Orrington v. Cnty. Comm’rs, 51 Me. 570, 573 (1863) (Kent, J., concurring); Browne v. … Connor, 138 Me. 63, 66-67 , 21 A.2d 709 (1941); Brown v. Warchalowski, 471 A.2d 1026, 1031-32 (Me.1984); Fournier v.

City of Lewiston v. Lewiston Educational Directors

503 A.2d 210 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 31, 1985

School Committee of Winslow v. Inhabitants of Winslow, 404 A.2d at 993 . Education is a state matter, Id. at 992 ; Squires v. … Sawin v. Town of Winslow, 258 A.2d 694 , 699 (Me.1969).

Handler v. Mayhew

841 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 23, 2012

See, e.g., Tower v. … See Leslie-Brown, 167 F.Supp.2d *447 at 405 .

Williams v. Brownstein

1 F.2d 470 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 20, 1924

In Hamor v. … Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 ; Sanger v. Upton, supra; Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 ; Burke v.

Barter v. Mayor of Rockland

114 Me. 466 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 8, 1916

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking that certain records of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Rockland be certified to the court, adjudged illegal and quashed. … Harkness v. Co. Commissioners, 26 Maine, 353; Parsonsfield v. Lord, 23 Maine, 516; Strong v. Commissioners, 31 Maine, 578. Petition dismissed with costs.

Leake v. Town of Kittery

874 A.2d 394 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 8, 2005

Tarason v. Town of S. Berwick, 2005 ME 30, ¶6 , 868 A.2d 230, 232 . “The meaning of terms or expressions in a zoning ordinance is a question of law for the court.” Two Lights Lobster Shack v. … Herrick v. Town of Mechanic Falls, 673 A.2d 1348, 1349 (Me.1996). “A zoning board of appeals has discretion in determining whether an activity is within the scope of a permitted, nonconforming use.” Id.

Jeffry v. Allstate Insurance

161 Me. 94 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 9, 1965

(See Williams, et al. v. Brown, et al., post). *100 In Williams and Reid v. … Brown and Brown (1955), 4 D.L.R. 454, on appeal to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court from a judgment dismissing plaintiff-passengers’ action for damage, the issue was (1) whether plaintiff was a guest “without payment for such