Case law

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.

Webber v. McAvoy

117 Me. 326 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 21, 1918

Thurston v. McMillan, 108 Maine, 67, 71, 72; Smith v. Sawyer, 108 Maine, 485, 487; May v. Labbe, 112 Maine, 209, 210; Smith v. Booth Bros., etc., Co., 112 Maine, 297, 306; See also Chandler v. … Batchelder v. Robbins, 95 Maine, 59, 67; Brown v. King, 5 Met., 173 , 180; Lawrence v. Doe, etc., 144 Ala., 524, 527 . Assuming the acts done upon the so-called sixty acre lot to have been adverse (Alden v.

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.

Golden v. Lodge

Superior Court of Maine · Aug 5, 2009

GOLDEN, Plaintiff v. … Defendant Brown's motion in limine to exclude evidence is dismissed as moot.

Perley v. Little

3 Me. 97 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1824

In Peters v. Brown, also cited by the plaintiff, 4 Esp. 46, there was an express admission of the debt. The defendant said to the witness, “ I can’t pay you-, I must pay Mr. … Danforth v. Culver 11 Johns. 146 . Murray v. Tilby 5 Binn. 576 . In Rowcroft v.

Department of Human Services v. Bell

1998 Me. 123 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1998

Littlefield v. Adler, 676 A.2d 940, 942 (Me.1996) (citing Milliken v. Buswell, 313 A.2d 111, 119 (Me.1973)). See also Howard v. … Brown, 161 Me. 52, 57 , 206 A.2d 854, 856 (1965) (“One may be bound by his conduct and, where there is a duty to speak, by his silence.”).

Warren v. Warren (In Re Warren)

160 B.R. 395 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · Nov 4, 1993

Cf., e.g., Biggs v. … In Peterson v.

State v. Fair

672 A.2d 590 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 7, 1996

See United States v. … Reed v. Farley, - U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 2296 , 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994); State v. Rose, 604 A.2d 24, 25 (Me.1992).

Devine v. Tierney

139 Me. 50 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 8, 1942

Linnell v. Lyford, 72 Me., 280; Norton v. Berry, supra. And a resulting trust arose by implication of law in his favor. Reed v. Reed, 75 Me., 264; Burleigh v. White, 64 Me., 23; Dudley v. Bachelder, 53 Me., 403. … Bugbee v. Sargent, 23 Me., 269; Brown v. Lawton, 87 Me., 83, 32 A., 733 ; Storey Eq. Pl. § 237.

Robert F. Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport

2014 ME 12 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 4, 2014

Bell v. … , tubing, surfing, windsurfing, boogie boarding, rafting, paddle boarding, snorkeling, and the like.

Whitten v. Tisdale

43 Me. 451 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1857

Webster and al. v. Seekamp, 4 Barn, and Ald., 352. In this respect the law of this country is the same. … Webster and al. v. Seekamp, before cited. Per Bagley, J. In the case at bar, the vessel was lost, with all on board, soon after the articles in question were furnished by the plaintiffs, and delivered to the master.

Dyer v. Fredericks

63 Me. 592 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

O’Brien v. Gilchrist, 34 Maine, 554; The Lady Franklin, 8 Wall, 325. … The case differs from Bogart v. Brown, 5 Pick., 18 , in this essential particular, that there, the document respecting which the plaintiff had offered the parol testimony was in the possession of the defendant himself.

Limestone Water & Sewer District v. Limestone Water & Sewer Co.

156 Me. 207 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 27, 1960

The identical legal issue here presented was considered and decided in Norway Water District v. … Dist. v. Hadsell et al., 196 Cal. 725 , 239 P. 38 , a portion *210 of the opinion in which is quoted with evident approval in Norway Water District v. Water Company, supra at page 320.

Stacey v. Graves

74 Me. 368 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 8, 1883

We think a delivery to him is, in contemplation of law, a delivery to the board of aldermen'. … In this particular the statute differs from the one under consideration in Rounds v. Mansfield, 38 Maine, 586, and Rounds v. Bangor, 46 Maine, 541, cited by plaintiff’s counsel.

Great Hill Fill & Gravel, Inc. v. Shapleigh

692 A.2d 928 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1997

. [¶ 3] The parties operated under the agreement until 1987 when the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) began proceedings against Shapleigh and Furbush because the excavation site did not comply with environmental laws … Id. at 183 (citing Bell v. Bell, 151 Me. 207, 211 , 116 A.2d 921, 923 (1955)) (quoting Woodbury v. Gardner, 77 Me. 68, 70 (1885)). The doctrine’s rationale was explained in Busque v.

Sid's, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co.

540 A.2d 119 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 14, 1988

See Spurlin v. Paul Brown Agency, Inc., 80 N.M. 306 , 454 P.2d 963, 964 (1969); Insurance Co. of North America v. Ferrell, 234 Ark. 581 , 353 S.W.2d 353, 358 (1962). … See Maine Mortgage Co. v. Tonge, 448 A.2d 899, 902 (Me.1982).

Higgins v. Carr Bros.

138 Me. 264 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 25, 1942

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S., 375 , 25 S. Ct., 276 , 49 Law Ed., 518; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S., 495 , 42 S. Ct., 397 , 66 Law Ed., 735, 23 A. L. R., 229; Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. … Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, supra. See Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin S. Corp., 301 U. S. *270 1, 29 , 57 S. Ct., 615 , 81 Law Ed., 893; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S., 238, 309 , 56 S.