Case law

Knowles Co. v. Northeast Harbor Insurers

788 A.2d 587 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 8, 2002

Russell v. Caroline-Becker, Inc., 336 Mass. 161 , 142 N.E.2d 899, 902 (1957). … Neva-Wet Corp. v. Never Wet Processing Corp., 277 N.Y. 163 , 13 N.E.2d 755, 760 (1938).

Inhabitants of Wells v. County Commissioners

79 Me. 522 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 29, 1887

Harkness v. Co. Com. 26 Maine, 353; Windham v. Co. Com. 26 Maine, 406, 410; King v. Lewiston, 70 Maine, 406; Acton v. Co. Com. 77 Maine, 128. 2. … To be sure, it does not contain the words " county commissioners,” and hence does not in direct, express terms, authorize that board eo nomine to make the location, as the Spec.

State v. Demerritt

149 Me. 380 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 30, 1953

State v. King, 123 Me. 256 ; State v. Beane, 146 Me. 328 ; State v. … State v. Boynton, 143 Me. 313 ; State v. Thompson, 143 Me. 326 .

Inhabitants of South Thomaston v. Inhabitants of Friendship

95 Me. 201 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 1, 1901

Fogg v. Greene, 16 Maine, 282; Bangor Boom Corp. v. Whitney, 29 Maine, 123; Towle v. Blake, 38 Maine, 528; Goodwin v. Clark, 65 Maine, 280; Soule v. Bruce, 67 Maine, 584. … Bowdoinham v. Phippsburg, 63 Maine, 501; Ripley v. Hebron, supra; No. Yarmouth v. W. Gardiner, supra; Etna v. Brewer, 78 Maine, 377. *209 In Ripley v.

Gross' Case

132 Me. 59 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 4, 1933

Penn. v. Spiers & Pond, Ltd. (1908), 1 K. B., 766; Great Northern Railway v. Dawson (1905), 1 K. B., 331; *61 Knott v. Tingle Jacobs & Co., 4 B. W. C. C., 55. … Co. v. Helps (1918), A. C., 141, Ann. Cas., 1918B, 1120.

State v. Call

322 A.2d 64 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 10, 1974

See State v. Lund, supra; State v. Pullen, supra. … State v. Brown, Me., 302 A.2d 322 (1973); State v. O’Clair, Me., 292 A.2d 186 (1972); Wood v.

Hatch v. Town of Bridgton

Superior Court of Maine · Apr 28, 2021

Grant v. Town ofBelgrade, 2019 ME 160, ,r 14,221 A.3d 112. … Rudolph v. Golick, 2010 ME 106, ,r 8, 8 A.3d 684; Jordan v. City ofEllsworth, 2003 ME 82, ,r 9, 828 A.2d 768. B.

Ly v. Lafortune

832 A.2d 757 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 14, 2003

The process for challenging the City’s alleged failure to act on an applica *759 tion for a tax abatement would be a timely appeal to the City’s Board of Assessment Review followed by an appeal to the Superior Court in accordance … Bank v.

Inhabitants of Palmyra v. Waverly Woolen Co.

99 Me. 134 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 9, 1904

National Fibre Board Company v. Lewiston & Auburn Electric Light Company, 95 Maine, 318, 321. … China v. Southwick, 12 Maine, 238; Smith v. Agawam Candi Co., 2 Allen, 355.

Miller v. Liberty Insurance Company

161 Me. 438 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 27, 1965

Jernigan v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company et al 367 P. 2d. 519, [14] 525 (N.M. 1961). See also Everett v. O’Leary, 95 N.W. 901, 902 (Minn. 1903); Brown v. … Co. of Alabama v. Carlton, 184 So. 171 , [1, 3] 172 (Ala. 1938); and Mansfield v.

State v. Wellman

83 Me. 282 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 6, 1891

Hallock v. Franklin, 2 Met. 559 . … Millelt v. County Commissioners, 80 Maine, 429.

Questions Submitted by the Senate, March 23 & 25, 1903

97 Me. 590 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 25, 1903

Head v. Providence Insurance Co., 2 Cranch, 127 ; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519 ; Miller v. New York, 13 Wall. 478 ; Greenwood v. Union Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13 ; Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 110 U. … S. 347 ; Norfolk and Western Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114 ; State v. Brown Manufacturing Co., 18 R. I. 14; Schaffer v. Union Mining Co., 55 Md. 74; State v. Maine Central R. R.

Pierce v. Getchell

76 Me. 216 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 2, 1884

This statutory provision has been carefully examined and construed by this court, in Sanders v. Getchell, ante, p. 158, and no further consideration of it is necessary in this case. … We think the refusal was clearly unreasonable within the meaning of the word as defined in Sanders v. Getchell, supra.

Pennell v. United States

162 F. 75 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 22, 1908

I find the value of the ballast on board of her at the time of the loss to, be $100. 3. What was the value of the provisions on board at the time of the loss ? … Bunton v. U. S. (C. C.) 62 Fed. 171 ; U. S. v. Sherman, 98 U. S. 565 , 25 L. Ed. 235 : Tillson v. U. S., 100 U. S. 43 , 25 L. Ed. 543 ; Harvey v. U. S., 113 U. S. 243 , 5 Sup. Ct. 465, 28 L. Ed. 987 ; Angarica v.

Potvin v. Seven Elms, Inc.

628 A.2d 115 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 6, 1993

Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329, 1335 (Me.1978). … See, e.g., Hall v. Hotel L’Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.App. 664 , 318 S.E.2d 99, 102 (1984); Powell v. Wyoming Cablevision, Inc., 184 W.Va. 700 , 403 S.E.2d 717, 725 (1991). But see Meyers v.

Farrell v. Bank of America

Superior Court of Maine · Dec 11, 2009

~TATE OF MAINE YORK, SS GLENN FARRELL, ) ) Plaintiff ) v. ) … NORMAN HANSON & DETROY PO BOX 4600 PORTLAND ME 04112-4600 DEFENDANT - BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION RUFUS BROWN, ESQ. BROWN & BURKE PO BOX 7530 PORTLAND ME 04112-7530 DEFENDANT - ANNE HODGIN KENNETH PIERCE, ESQ.

Milner v. Hare

125 Me. 460 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 16, 1926

Watt v. Corey, 76 Maine, 87; Hopkins v. McGillicudy, supra; Page 276; White v. Carr, 71 Maine, 555; Morin v. Moreau, 112 Maine, 471; Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Maine, 266. … The plaintiff urged the latter reason, because of the delay in bringing the trover suit, and it following a dispute as to some hay and board. .

Parkman v. Osgood

3 Me. 17 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1824

The case of Brown v. Jin- ■derson 13 Mass. 201 seems to be a strong case against the plaintiff. There the replication attempted to avoid the plea in bar by a promise on the part of the administratrix to pay the debt.

Williams v. Hoyt

117 Me. 61 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 31, 1917

The principles to be followed in ,the assessment of damages, which is the only question remaining, are stated in McKay, Admr., v. … Living at home his earnings would, in a large measure, if not entirely, during his school life, be off-set by his board and sustenance.

Abbott v. Commissioner of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

623 A.2d 1273 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 1993

Lewiston Raceway, Inc. v. Harness Racing Comm’n, 593 A.2d 663, 664 (Me.1991). … Senty v. Board of Osteopathic Exam. & Reg., 594 A.2d 1068, 1072 (Me.1991).