Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,550 results
2.06s
951 A.2d 817 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 26, 2008
. *819 [¶ 4] In October 1999, William sold the beach house to James and Patricia Brown. … See Chiappetta v. LeBlond, 544 A.2d 759, 760 (Me.1988).
Cited 16 timesPublished36 Me. 298 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1853
These views do not conflict with the principles established in Blake v. Williams, 6 Pick. 286 , and in Holmes v. … Potter v, Brown, 5 East, 129. But it has been urged that the assignment of the bankrupt was fraudulent on his part, and that therefore nothing passed to his assignee.
Cited 3 timesPublished760 A.2d 232 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 20, 2000
Warren Co. v. … Irene Brown, age 76, born and raised on the Mile Road accessing Wells Beach, testified to her memories of the beach.
Cited 36 timesPublishedFirst Nat. Bank of Pittsfield v. Morong
146 Me. 430 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 24, 1951
S., 1871, Chap. 82, Sec. 47, when West v. Furbish, 67 Me. 17 , was decided. … Its force was recognized in Merrill Trust Co. v. Brown, 122 Me. 101 , 119 A. 109 ; Jordan v. Goodside, 123 Me. 330 , 122 A. 859 ; and Flynn v. Currie, 130 Me. 461 , 157 A. 310 . The issue is fraud.
Cited 4 timesPublishedInhabitants of Andover v. McAllister
119 Me. 153 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 20, 1920
Richards, 10 Maine, 429, and followed in Hilborne v. Brown, 12 Maine, 162; Tapley v. Smith , 18 Maine, 12; and Peaks v. … Bank v. Exeter Works, 127 Mass., 542 ; Thompson v. Vinton, 121 Mass., 139 ; Tibbetts v. Horne, 65 N. H., 242; Powers v. Dennison, 30 Vt., 752 ; Prince v. Case, 10 Conn., 375 ; Stillman v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDenison Paper Manufacturing Co. v. Robinson Manufacturing Co.
74 Me. 116 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 2, 1882
In Garnsey v. … Burnham v. Hempton, 44 N.
Cited 0 timesPublished86 Me. 394 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 24, 1894
Bank v. Exeter Works, 127 Mass. 542 ; Thompson v. Vinton, 121 Mass. 139 ; Hunt v. Iron Co. 97 Mass. 279 . … Everett v. Hall, 67 Maine, 497; Brown v. Haynes, 52 Maine, 578.
Cited 2 timesPublishedCity of Auburn v. City of Lewiston
85 Me. 282 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 27, 1893
The case of Salem v. Andover, 3 Mass. 442 , seems to be in point, although decided upon statutes differing from ours. The pauper, an adult, fell terribly sick with some loathsome disease at his parents’ home. … Eoss for care and board, and these had been approved by the overseers and were payable. The liability to pay them was a cause of action, precisely as if they had been paid. Fayette v.
Cited 2 timesPublished473 A.2d 1273 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 3, 1984
State v. Howes, 432 A.2d 419, 424 (Me.1981); see also State v. Brown, 410 A.2d 1033, 1034 (Me.1980). … As we stated in State v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedCity of Auburn v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n
86 Me. 244 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 20, 1894
Inhabitants of Foxcroft v. Piscataquis Valley Camp Meeting Association, ante, p. 78. That case fully covers and controls the present case. … Cressey v. Parks, 76 Maine, 532. Defendants defaulted.
Cited 10 timesPublished41 B.R. 933 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 1, 1984
See In re Brown, 21 B.R. 701, 703 , 9 B.C.D. 228, 229-30 (Bankr. 1st Cir.1982). … Stark v. St. Mary’s Hospital (In re Stark), 717 F.2d 322 , 324 (7th Cir.1983); In re Zablocki, 36 B.R. 779, 782 (Bankr.D.Conn.1984); La Bate & Conti, Inc. v.
Cited 5 timesPublished18 F. Cas. 366 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 15, 1870
The law in relation to steamers meeting a sailing vessel when on a tack is very clearly expounded by Benedict, J., in the ease of Whitney v. … Such also in the present instance is the statement of the captain and mate, the only persons on board the schooner.
Cited 0 timesPublishedJackson Advertising Corp. v. State Tax Assessor
551 A.2d 1365 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 15, 1988
See also Lovely v. … Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Presque Isle, 259 A.2d 666, 668 (Me.1969) {de novo proceeding in the Superior Court is still in the nature of appellate review; proper test on appeal is whether zoning board’s decision was
Cited 13 timesPublished510 A.2d 527 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 29, 1986
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). … Id.; see State v. Brown, 321 A.2d 478, 485 (Me.1985). In camera we have carefully examined Gilbert’s employment and military records, which the Superior Court had impounded.
Cited 7 timesPublished131 Me. 248 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 13, 1932
Moore v. Protection Insurance Co., 29 Me., 97; Brown v. Moran, 42 Me., 44; Tomlinson v. Clement Bros., 130 Me., 189, 154 A., 355 . … In Jackson v.
Cited 9 timesPublishedSawyer v. Androscoggin Electric Co.
131 Me. 60 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 19, 1932
The plaintiff, while waiting to board a trolley car of the defendant, was struck by it and suffered serious injuries. … Haarland v. Maine Central Railroad Co., 125 Me., 52, 54. The case is distinguishable from Verrill v.
Cited 1 timesPublished118 Me. 303 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 13, 1919
W., 64 ; Smith v. State Board, (Iowa), 117 N. W., 1117 . A hearing before a judicial tribunal is not essential, but there must be notice and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before some tribunal. Bennett v. … E., 326 ; Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass., 544 ; Brill v. Ohio Humane Society, 4 Ohio C. C., 358; Sahr v. Scholle, 35 N. Y. S., 97; Goodwin v. Toucy, 71 Conn., 262 , 41 Atl., 806 ; Jenks v. Stump, (Col.), 93 Pac., 17 .
Cited 21 timesPublished423 A.2d 527 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 11, 1980
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. … See *536 Barnes v. Board of Trustees, etc., 369 F.Supp. 1327 (D.C.W.D.Mich. 1973).
Cited 21 timesPublishedPortland Pipe Line Corporation v. City of South Portland
2020 ME 125 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 29, 2020
The City’s Planning Board also approved the change. Id. at 14. … Portland Pipe Line Corp. v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedJordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
651 A.2d 358 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 20, 1994
We have noted that decisions of the Board interpreting the Workers’ Compensation Act are “entitled to great deference and will be upheld on appeal unless the statute plainly compels a different result.” Nielsen v. … See 42 U.S.C. § 402 (v) (1993).
Cited 65 timesPublished
Ask Donna