Case law

Curtis v. City of Portland

59 Me. 483 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1871

But it is impossible to distinguish the case in principle from that of the Female Orphan Asylum v. Johnson, 43 Maine, 180. … Storer, their secretary, to execute “ indentures for and in behalf of the board of managers; ” and the indentures were signed by the defendant and “ Mary B.

Knight v. Dunbar

83 Me. 359 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 9, 1891

The plaintiff had erected a close board-fence on a part of the line between them. … This view is well sustained by the reasoning and result, upon somewhat similar facts, in the case of Hatch v. Allen, 27 Maine, 85. Exceptions overruled. Walton, Virgin, Libbey, Emery and Foster, JJ., concurred.

Flanigan v. Ames Department Store

652 A.2d 83 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 4, 1995

See Hardy v. Hardy’s Trailer Sales, Inc., 448 A.2d 895, 898-99 (Me.1982); Mailman v. Colonial Acres Nursing Home, 420 A.2d 217, 220 (Me.1980); Rugan v. Dole Co., 396 A.2d 1003, 1005 (Me.1979); Coty, 393 A.2d at 157 . … Remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board with instructions to deny the employer’s petition for review. All concurring. .

Owen v. Boyle

15 Me. 147 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1838

Abbott held, in Brown v. Gracey, Dow. & Ry. N. P. … Gilman v. Elton, 3 Brod. & Bing. 75.

Inhabitants of Biddeford v. Benoit

128 Me. 240 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 15, 1929

At a joint convention of the city government of Biddeford on October 13, 1924, it was voted that the Board of Aldermen, the Board of Education, the Principal of the High School and the Superintendent of Schools “form a committee … Robinson, Board of Education“A legal and valid claim in proper *245 form, Henry A. Pratt, Auditor.” The agent immediately receipted the bill and returned it to the City Clerk’s office.

Billings v. Inhabitants of Monmouth

72 Me. 174 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 6, 1881

And the plain doctrine of Bessey v. Unity, 65 Maine, 342, and Parsons v. … The plaintiff offered testimony tending to put his case upon another footing than that of Parsons v.

Drown v. Smith

52 Me. 141 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1862

Wyman v. Brown, 50 Maine, 139. … Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns., 227 . In Pynchon v.

Monroe v. Clark

107 Me. 134 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 28, 1910

The doors and windows may be made at the shop, the boards may be sawed and planed at the mill, or the iron work done at the blacksmith shop. These processes are all a part of the erection of the building. … Webster v. Real Estate Improvement Co., 140 Mass. 526 .

State v. Duguay

158 Me. 61 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 20, 1962

Street Railway, 101 Me. 591 , 65 A. 20 ; Rioux v. Portland Water District, 132 Me. 307 , 170 A. 63 ; State v. Brown, 129 Me. 169 , 151 A. 9 ; York v. Wyman, 115 Me. 353 , 98 A. 1024 . … “A I took just about two steps toward the cup-' board and I had the gun this way. (Indicating with arms) *78 “Q Where were you looking then? “A Down at the cupboard. “Q What happened then?

Howe v. Huntington

15 Me. 350 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1839

Muilman v. DeEuguino, 2 H. Bl. 565; Fry v. Hill, 7 Taunt. 397; Wallace v. Agry, 4 Mason, 344 . … Tindale v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167. Abbott C.

Woodside v. Wagg

71 Me. 207 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1880

In State v. … The same rule is held in Brown v. Lunt, 37 Maine, 423, with a citation of authorities, and discussion of principles which leave very little to be added on the subject.

State v. Howard

405 A.2d 206 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 24, 1979

People v. Brown, 21 A.D.2d 738, 739 , 249 N.Y.S.2d 922, 923 (1964) (“an intention to commit a crime whose distinguishing element is lack of intent is logically repugnant”); State v. … State v. Flaherty, supra at 1177.

Davric Maine Corp. v. Maine Harness Racing Commission

732 A.2d 289 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 29, 1999

(quoting Robinson v. Board of Trustees of the Maine State Retirement Sys., 523 A.2d 1376, 1378 (Me.1987)). … Bureau v.

Venegas v. Global Aircraft Service, Inc.

159 F. Supp. 3d 93 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 4, 2016

See generally Smilow v. Sw. … Lusky and Brown chose team leaders and inspectors. GAS Dep. 45:22-47:7 (ECF No. 98-1); LTNA (Lusky) Dep. 42:2-11 (ECF No. 98-11).

Mississippi & Dominion Steamship Co. v. Swift

86 Me. 248 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 24, 1894

In Methudy v. Ross, 10 Mo. … In Water Commissionsrs v. Brown, 32 N. J. L. 504, Brown made a proposition to the commissioners to do certain work in laying .pipe.

Benton v. Maine State Highway Commission

161 Me. 541 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 13, 1965

Haile, et al. v. Sagadahoc County Commissioners, 140 Me. 16 , 31 A. (2nd) 925; Phippsburg v. Sagadahoc County, 127 Me. 42 , 141 A. 95 ; Bethel v. County Commissioners, 42 Me. 478 ; Small v. Pennell, 31 Me. 267 . … As was stated in Hayford v.

Bowler v. Welsh

719 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 22, 1989

Welsh Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the General Electric Co., Fairfield, Connecticut from the impressment and compulsory acquisition of [his] *26 shares (1200) in General Electric Canada Inc. … See Gerena v. Puerto Rico Legal Services, 697 F.2d 447, 449-452 (1st Cir.1983). John F.

Williams v. ME. SUP. JUD. CT. INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES

350 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 3, 2004

See Bettencourt v. … A response from the Board of Bar Overseers (Board) was due on or about June *140 10, 2004. The Board, failed to file any reply to the motion. See attached order p. 1.

Smyth v. Titcomb

31 Me. 272 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1850

And a misapplication of the money by the board of agents would not affect the validity of the assessments. … Norwich v. County Commissioners of Hampshire, 13 Pick. 60 ; Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend. 65 ; School District No. 1, in Greene, v. Bailey, 12 Maine, 254; Bussey v. Gilmore, 3 Maine, 191; Ford v.

Strout v. Burgess

144 Me. 263 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 12, 1949

In its interpretation of this statute the Massachusetts Court stated in Smith v. Brown, 302 Mass. 432 ; 19 N. E. 2nd (Mass.) 732, 733: “It is provided by G. L. (Ter. … As this transfer was founded upon a valuable consideration, the rule that an intended gift cannot be enforced as a trust as stated in Brown v.