Case law

In Re Connors

348 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · Aug 25, 2006

They seek to “ ‘discern from the plain language the real purpose of the legislation, avoiding results that are absurd, inconsistent, unreasonable, or illogical.’ ” International Paper Co. v. Board of Envtl. … See Thibeault v.

Coffin v. Freeman

82 Me. 577 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 30, 1890

The plea admits the'defendant to be in possession of all the demanded premises not disclaimed (Perkins v. Raiti, 43 Maine, 280) on which he may safely rest until the plaintiff shall show a right to disturb it. Wyman v. … Brown, 50 Maine, 139; Tebbetts v. Estes, 52 Maine, 566; Chaplin v. Barker, 53 Maine, 275.

Ashley L. Whitmore v. Nicholas A. Whitmore

288 A.3d 799 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 10, 2023

See Ehret v. … “We review factual findings regarding a party’s income for clear error,” Brown v. Brown, 2007 ME 89, ¶ 11, 929 A.2d 476, and we review an award of child support for an abuse of discretion, Dube v.

State v. Crowell

25 Me. 171 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1845

Rex v. Smith, 3 Bur. 1475 . The Apothecaries v. … This board are not required to keep a record of their proceedings; the license itself, signed by the members of the board, is the evidence of qualification, and is delivered to the person licensed.

Begin v. Town of Sabattus

531 A.2d 1261 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 5, 1987

In such circumstances, the Board’s rejection of the revised map presents no issue suitable for judicial review. See Your Home, Inc. v. City of Portland, 505 A.2d 488 (Me.1986). … The function of the Planning Board is confined to the approval of park design as a preliminary step to the issuance of a construction permit by the Board of Selectmen.

Angell Family 2012 Prouts Neck Trusts v. Town of Scarborough Kenyon C. Bolton III v. Town of Scarborough

2016 ME 152 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 13, 2016

v. … Light Co. v.

In re Knox County Electric Co.

119 Me. 179 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 10, 1920

Small v. Danville, 51 Maine, 359; Goddard v. Harpswell, 84 Maine, 499; Woodcock v. Calais, 66 Maine, 234. … Arlington Board of Survey v. Bay State Street Ry., 224 Mass., 463, 469 . The principle seems to be no longer debatable. Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., U. S. Sup. Ct., June 9, 1919. 250 U. S., 394 ; Law. Ed.

State v. Lane

649 A.2d 1112 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 15, 1994

State v. Munsey, 152 Me. 198 , 127 A.2d 79, 81-82 (1956); State v. … State v.

Bourbeau v. United States

76 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 12, 1948

The position of counsel for the defendants is supported to some extent by the case of Zazove v. … United States, 6 Cir., 159 F.2d 683 and Strauss v. United States, 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 1017 .

Dudley v. Kennedy

63 Me. 465 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

Brown v. Watson, 47 Maine, 161; Dobson v. Sutton, 58 E. C. L., 991. Here the plaintiff is proved to have sustained special damages over and above those inflicted upon the general public. … Clarke v. Dinsmore, 5 N. H., 137. An unexecuted agreement to pay is not payment. Accord without satisfaction is no answer. Coxon v. Chadley, 3 B. & C., 591.

Charles v. Harriman

121 Me. 484 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 27, 1922

The r rule laid down in Plight v. … Moody v. Inhbts. of Camden, 61 Maine, 264, 265. Mitchell v. Chase, 87 Maine, 172, 176. In Sposedo v. Merriman, 111 Maine, 530 at Page 542, Mr.

Ramsay v. Dube

Superior Court of Maine · Feb 16, 2018

Metcalf has run a boarding facility for over thirty years and boards between sixteen and eighteen horses at a given time. (Pl.'s Add. S.M.F. (Dube), 5.) In Ms. … Id.; Henry v.

Nichols v. S.D. Warren/Sappi

928 A.2d 732 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 7, 2007

Bureau v. Staffing Network, Inc., 678 A.2d 583, 588 (Me.1996). [¶ 10] We first examine the plain language of the statute. … The entry is: The judgment of the hearing officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board is affirmed.

The Forest

9 F. Cas. 443 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 26, 1837

The Neptune [Case No. 17,135]; Swift v. The Happy Return [Id. 13,697]; Lamson v. … Swift v. The Happy Return [supra]; Lamson v. Westcott [supra].

Johnson v. Anderson

18 Me. 76 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1841

In the case of Stevens v. … In Headlam v. Hedley, 1 Holt, 463, Mr Justice Bayley admits the presumption of law to be, that the property of the soil in a highway belongs to the owners of the adjoining lands. In Peck v. Smith, 1 Conn.

Town of Otis v. Derr

782 A.2d 788 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 31, 2001

Munsey v. … Whether we have an opportunity to offer guidance to local zoning boards or whether a ease has an unusual procedural posture and would now be heard on direct appeal is immaterial to the application of the rule. Musson v.

State v. Poulin

105 Me. 224 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 2, 1909

It will *235 be observed that Brown v. … Now Chief Justice Butler in discussing Brown v.

Bragdon v. Town of Vassalboro

Superior Court of Maine · Jan 23, 2001

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). … This court is not permitted to “make findings independent of those explicitly or implicitly found by the Board or [to] substitute its judgment for that of the Board.” Perrin v.

Bangs v. Town of Wells

834 A.2d 955 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 31, 2003

This reluctance to “federalize” zoning stems from the concern that every appeal from a zoning board decision “ ‘necessarily involves some claim that the board exceeded, abused, or ‘distorted’ its legal authority in some manner … We have unambiguously stated that “plaintiffs have an obligation to recognize that every unfavorable result before a planning board does not automatically rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation.” Burr v.

State v. Robinson

49 Me. 285 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1862

Downing v. Porter, 8 Gray, 539 ; State v. Bartlett, 47 Maine, 388. … Brown v. the State of Maryland, 12 Wheat., 262 . No one but the importer himself has the right to sell, except as allowed by the laws of the State; and he can sell only in the original packages.