Case law

Wardwell v. Inhabitants of Castine

154 Me. 123 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 5, 1958

State v. Harmon, 115 Me. 268 ; Harding, Attorney General, et al. v. Brown, 153 Me. 331 . In each of the cited cases, the conduct of the plaintiff conclusively demonstrated an intention to vacate the office. … Andrews v. Portland, 79 Me. 484, 490 . The presiding justice properly refused to direct verdicts for the defendant. The entry will be Exceptions overruled.

Vogt v. Churchill

679 A.2d 522 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 26, 1996

See also Trans Coastal Corp. v. … Wilson v. DelPapa, 634 A.2d 1252, 1253 (Me.1993).

Dubie v. Branz

145 Me. 170 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 4, 1950

In McPheters v. … Great Northern Manufacturing Co. v. Brown, 113 Me. 51, 53 , 92 A. 993 . Fraud vitiates all contracts into which it enters, verbal or written. Warren v. Kimball, 59 Me. 264, 266 ; Stewart v.

Gibson v. Norway Savings Bank

69 Me. 579 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1879

Pidge v. Tyler, 4 Mass. 541, 546 . Marshall v. Fish, 6 Mass. 24 , Montgomery v. Dorion, 6 N. H. 250. Brown v. Manter, 22 N. H. 468. … Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 422 .

Loud v. Poland

126 Me. 45 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 4, 1927

Richardson v. Richardson, 80 Maine 585 . Hodgdon v. Clark, 84 Maine 319 . Small v. Thompson, 92 Maine 545 . Haselton v. Shepherd, 99 Maine 495 . A contrary view is expressed in Haines v. … Brown, 114 Maine 320 , in an opinion in which the cases cited above are not discussed and were apparently overlooked. Notwithstanding this later opinion, Richardson v.

Hogan v. Great Northern Paper, Inc.

784 A.2d 1083 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 28, 2001

Dumond v. Aroostook Van Lines, 670 A.2d 939, 941 (Me.1996). … Remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. .

State v. Patterson

68 Me. 473 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 12, 1878

Hutchison v. Bowker, 5 Mee. & W. 535, 540. Smith v. Faulkner, 12 Gray, 251 , 255. Putnam v. Bond, 100 Mass. 58 . Cunningham v. Washburn, 119 Mass. 224 . Powers v. Cary, 64 Maine, 9, 21. … Primm v. Hazen, 27 Mo. 211 . Heft v. McGill, 3 Pa. St. 257. Reynolds v. Richards, 14 Pa. St. 208. Iasigi v. Brown, 17 How. 183 . Bolckow v. Seymour, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 107. The rule may be subject to other qualification.

City of Calais v. Whidden

64 Me. 249 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

The defendant, who was then the city solicitor of the plaintiff’s and their representative in the legisla *253 ture, appeared before the auditing board to procure the allowance of the plaintiff’s claims. … Stetson v. Howe, 31 Maine, 353; Hall v. Marston, 17 Mass., 575 .

Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Key Bank of Maine

639 A.2d 1065 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 8, 1994

In Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. … In Brown, however, the defendant bank asserted no security interest in the funds, id. at 1000 , which meant that there was no basis on which to apply the pro rata rule.

Burbank v. Horn

39 Me. 233 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1855

Hall v. Hennesley, Cro. Eliz. 486. S. C. Nay, 51; Kellan v. Mannesley, Cro. Jac. 39; Smart v. Easdale, Cro. Car. 199. … It is said by Lord Kenyon, in Holt v.

Ex parte Paris

18 F. Cas. 1104 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Oct 15, 1847

A different construction would require a double payment or allowance for board. … [Randolph v. Donaldson] 9 Cranch [13 U. S.] 76.

Michael F. Bailey v. City of Lewiston

2017 ME 160 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 20, 2017

Hird v. … See State v.

State v. McKenzie

440 A.2d 1072 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 12, 1982

[Brown v. Illinois ] 422 U.S. [590, 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ] . .. [(1975)].” State v. Bleyl, Me., 435 A.2d 1349, 1360 (1981). In this case, defendant has not claimed that his consent was involuntary. … Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); see Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980).

Washburn v. Gilman

64 Me. 163 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1873

In Gerrish v. … In Crosby v.

Tucker v. Smith

4 Me. 415 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1827

In the case of Brown v. Davis, cited in the argument, Ld. … And in Ayer v.

Jones v. New England & Nova Scotia Steamship Co.

71 Me. 56 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 16, 1880

Bartlett, 67 Maine, 130; Harriman v. Sanger, Id. 442; Grosby v. Maine Central R. R. Co. 69 Maine, 418. A large part of the charge is as favorable to the plaintiff as the rules of law will permit. … Co. v.

State v. Nelson

714 A.2d 832 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 23, 1998

State v. Garrett, 1998 ME 7, ¶ 3 , 704 A.2d 393, 394 . … State v. Duval, 666 A.2d 496, 498 (Me.1995).

McLellan v. McFadden

114 Me. 242 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 14, 1915

Brown, 100 Maine, 410. So we must look to the terms of the grant. … Warren v. Blake, 54 Maine, 276; Whitmore v. Brown, 100 Maine, 410.

State v. Forbes

445 A.2d 8 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 6, 1982

State v. … Peter Marong stated that the weapon had a light brown stock with a “pink” shoulder rest.

Johnson v. Johnson Bros.

108 Me. 272 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 14, 1911

In Shoe Co. v. … The following are some of the many cases in which this doctrine is affirmed: Bank v. Remsen, 43 Fed. 226 ; Bank v. Atkinson, 55 Fed. 465 ; Tod v. Land Co., 57 Fed. 47 ; Sav. Bank v. Shawnee Bank, 95 U. S. 557 ; Blake v.