Case law

Southern Maine Landlord Ass. v. The City of Portland, Maine

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 2, 2021

Waterville Hotel Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 241 A.2d 50, 52 (Me. 1968)(emphasis added). … The Law Court first applied the unlawful delegation doctrine in Waterville Hotel Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals.

Cooper v. Maine Dep't of Environmental Protection

Superior Court of Maine · Feb 8, 2022

Stein v. M'a.ine Criminal Justice Academy, 20141vffi 82, <[ 11. 15. When the under igned reviews an ag ncy's fa tual findings, this Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of tbe Board. Duffy v. … AFSCME Council 93 v. Maine Labor Relations Board, 678 A.2d 591, 593 (Me. 1996); Nelson v.

Clarke v. Strickland

5 F. Cas. 984 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Sep 15, 1855

Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 272 ; Libby v. Burnham, 15 Mass. 144 ; Joyner v. Egremont School Dist., 3 Cush. 569 . … And therefore, as was observed by Chief Justice Whitman, (Brown v.

Bridge v. City of Westbrook

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 14, 2023

Aydelott v. City of Portland, 2010 ME 25, { 10, 990 A.2d 1024. The party seeking to vacate the decision has the burden of persuasion. Friends of Lamoine v. Town of Lamoine, 2020 ME 70, § 20, 234 A.3d 214. … Town of North Haven, 2017 ME 114, 4 15, 163 A.3d 835 (quoting Bizier v.

Carey v. Town of Rumford

Superior Court of Maine · Nov 17, 2021

(quoting Osprey Family Tr. v. Town ofOwls 5 Head, 2016 l\.1E 89, 12, 141 A.3d 1114). The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board. Tarason v. … Co. v.

In re Adoption of Bragg

384 A.2d 435 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 31, 1978

To permit otherwise would “transform the Law Court into an advisory board for the direction of the business of the court at nisi prius, a function the law court cannot assume.” Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. … Small v. Gartley, Me., 363 A.2d 724, 731 (1976). The entry will be: Report discharged. Case dismissed from the law docket. DELAHANTY, J., did not sit. .

State v. Ryder

348 A.2d 1 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 14, 1975

State v. Huff, 157 Me. 269, 275 , 171 A.2d 210, 213 (1961); State v. McNaughton, 132 Me. 8, 11 , 164 A. 623, 625 (1933). … State v. Armstrong, Me., 344 A.2d 42, 49 (1975); State v. Palumbo, Me., 327 A.2d 613, 616 (1974).

Catholic Charities of Maine, Inc. v. City of Portland

304 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 6, 2004

The corporation’s members, in turn, vote to approve members of the Board of Directors. Id. ¶ 47 . Thus, the Bishop of Portland essentially controls the Board of Directors. … In Bagley v.

Inhabitants of Cumberland Co. v. Pennell

69 Me. 357 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 1879

Browning v. Hanford, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 588. S. C. in error, 5 Denio, 586 , and cases cited in the chancellor’s opinion. Moore v. Westervelt, 21 N. Y. 103 . Phillips v. Lamar, 27 Ga. 228 . … S. v. Thomas, 15 Wall. 354. To a similar purport, see opinion of Cowen, J., in Browning v. Hanford, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 591.

State v. DeGennaro

46 A.3d 1147 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 24, 2012

State v. McLaughlin, 2009 ME 90, ¶ 8 , 977 A.2d 1008 ; see State v. … About a week after the project was approved by the planning board they received a call from Peter De-Gennaro, who congratulated them on receiving approval and indicated that because his proposal to the board had not been

Murray v. City of Portland

Superior Court of Maine · Aug 1, 2022

See Dickau v. Vt. Mui. Ins. Co., 2014 ME 158, ,r 21, 107 A.3d 621; Stewart v. Town of'Sedgwick, 2002 ME 81, ,r 6, 797 A.2d 27. … Accordingly, the Court refuses to disturb the Board's conclusion that the 19 Willis Street site plan conformed with all applicable setback requirements. See Balano v.

State v. Ketchum

694 A.2d 916 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 5, 1997

State v. … See State v.

State v. Armen

537 A.2d 1143 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 23, 1988

Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 142 , 86 S.Ct. 719, 724 (1966) (Fortas, J. joined by Warren, C.J. and Douglas, J., plurality) (referring to sit-in by black students at segregated public library). … See Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 137 , 86 S.Ct. 719, 721 , 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966).

Durand's Case

124 Me. 59 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 23, 1924

The policy took in employees in sawmills, lumber yards, work-cooks *61 furnishing board for employees in connection with lumbering risks, drivers and drivers’ helpers, and others. … Timmerman v. Dever, (Mich.), 17 N. W., 280 . A place two miles distant, in reference to the drilling of other oil wells, was not included by the term. Sparks v. Pittsburgh Co., 159 Pa. St., 295.

Gardiner Cotton & Woolen Factors Co. v. Inhabitants of Gardiner

5 Me. 133 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1827

As well might it be urged that the money invested in a saw mill, is not capital employed in the manufacturing of boards. … This construction was expressly given to a similar section in the tax act of Massachusetts, in the case of the Amesbury Woolen & Cotton Manufacturing Company v. The inhabitants of Amesbury 17. Mass. 461.

Clark v. Metcalf

38 Me. 122 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1854

Clapp, Adm’x, v. Cofran, 7 Mass. 98 ; Freeman v. Davis & al., 7 Mass. 200 ; Burroughs v. Lowder & al. 8 Mass. 373 ; Howard v. Brown, 21 Maine, 385; Barrows v. Bridge & al. 21 Maine, 398. The case of Metcalf, Adm’r, v. … Hathaway v. Crosby, 17 Maine, 448; Ware v. Jackson, 24 Maine, 166; Fales v Dow, 24 Maine, 211.

Wardwell v. INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF CASTINE

144 A.2d 530 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 5, 1958

State v. Harmon, 115 Me. 268 , 98 A. 804 ; Harding *532 ex rel. Erickson v. Brown, 153 Me. 331 , 138 A.2d 635 . … Andrews v. Portland, 79 Me. 484, 490 , 10 A. 458 . The presiding justice properly refused to direct verdicts for the defendant. The entry will be Exceptions overruled.

Davis v. Waterville, Fairfield & Oakland Railway

117 Me. 32 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 13, 1917

A damp snow storm commenced about five in the afternoon and had practically stopped when the plaintiff boarded the car. … Palmer v. Penn. Co., 111 N. Y., 488 . *34 Foster v. Old Colony St.

Hartshorn v. Assessors of Ellsworth

60 Me. 276 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1872

S., c. 6, § 14, and is as follows : All goods, wares, and merchandise, all logs, lumber, boards, and other lumber, and all stock in trade, including stock employed in the business of any of the mechanic arts, in any town … Rex v. St. Pancras, 3 A. & E., 542. It should expressly state the duty required of the defendant.

Mills v. Town of Bar Harbor

Superior Court of Maine · Nov 27, 2019

Appletm Cottage, LLC v. Town ofCape Elizabeth, 2017 ME 177, 'I[ 9, 169. A3d 396; 'Fissmer v. … Ingraham v.