Case law

May v. City of Auburn

112 Me. 143 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 9, 1914

general and comprehensive clause: “And do all professional acts incident to the office or which may be required of him by the mayor, city council or either branch thereof, or any committee thereof, or any administrative board … Calais v.

Weymouth v. Inhabitants of Gorham

22 Me. 385 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1843

But the indebtedness of the town for the board and clothing of Lombard, who had his legal settlement therein, is to the plaintiff for his own private benefit, and not in trust, for any other. … The case of York v. Penobscot, 2 Greenl. 1, is in point to show that the objection, which might otherwise have been taken, was waived. But the objection much relied upon is, that the suit was not seasonably commenced.

Canal National Bank v. Mills

405 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 18, 1975

See, e. g., United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89 , 67 S.Ct. 556 , 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947); Muskrat v. … Thus, in United Public Workers of America v.

Harold MacQuinn, INC v. Town of Mount Desert

Superior Court of Maine · Oct 12, 2018

See, e.g., Roop v. … Bank v.

Gorham Sand & Gravel v. Town of Sebago

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 6, 2023

P. 80B Petition for Review of the decision of the Town Zoning Board of Appeals ("Board") remanding an application to the Town Planning Board. … GSG is correct that the rule applies to town boards of appeals regardless of formation date, see Lamarre v.

State v. Bornstein

107 Me. 260 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 2, 1910

So in Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. … The question again arose in State v.

Plante v. Town of Brunswick

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 23, 2019

The court will uphold the Board's findings of fact, "even if the record contains inconsistent evidence or evidence contrary to the result reached by the Board." Beal v. … (See UAH-Hydro Kennebec, L.P. v.

United States v. Sybal

468 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 3, 2007

U.S. v. Brown, 426 F.3d 32, 36 (1st Cir.2005). The determination of manifest necessity is a matter of discretion for the trial court. Id. … Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). 2 .

Bowman v. Pinkham

71 Me. 295 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1880

Burrough v. Philcox, 5 Mylne & Craig, 92. "Tbe principle of that case, Pierson v. Garnet, 2 Bro. C. C. 38; and of Richardson v. Chapman, 7 Bro. P. … Brown v. Higgs, 8 Vesey, Jr. 574.

Norton v. City of South Portland

831 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 9, 2011

Connick v. Thompson, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1360 , 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011) (quoting Board of Comm’rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997)). … Captain Dugan also serves on the Board of Directors of the National Tactical Officers Association.

Williams v. New England Mutual Fire Insurance

31 Me. 219 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1850

Co. v. Cotheal, 7 Wend. 72 ; Snyder v. The Farmers’ Ins. and Loan Co. 13 Wend. 92 ; S. C. 16 Wend. 481 ; 2 Hall, 608 . … Dobson v. Sotheby, 1 Moo. & Mal. 90; Shaw v. Robberds, 6 Ad. &. El. 75; Grant v. Howard Ins. Co., 5 Hill, 10 .

Burgess v. M/V Tamano

370 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 27, 1973

Smedberg v. Mosie Dam Co., supra; Bouquet v. Hackensack Water Co., 90 N.J.L. 203 , 101 A. 379 (1917); Hohmann v. City of Chicago, 140 Ill. 226 , 29 N.E. 671 (1892); Prosser v. Ottumwa, 42 Iowa 509 (1876); Willard v. … Whitmore v. Brown, 102 Me. 47 , 65 A. 516 (1906).

The Rochambeau

20 F. Cas. 1064 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 19, 1864

B., shipped on board the American ship Roeh-ambeau, for a voyage to London and back, not to exceed nine months in time, at the rate of $25 per month, in the New Brunswick currency. … Tre-cartin v. The Rochambeau [Case No. 14,163]. The decree in the case ought to be for a sum in the United States currency that would make the payment equal to specie.

Trask v. Public Utilities Commission

731 A.2d 430 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 22, 1999

An emergency meeting of the Board of Trustees of the District was held on March 29, 1998, at which the Board discussed and accepted Trask’s offer. … See, e.g., Great Hill Lake, Inc. v.

Peaks v. Hutchinson

59 L.R.A. 279 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 29, 1902

See also Wentworth v. Wentworth, 69 Maine, 247. It is true that in Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Maine, 542, 41 L. R. … Russell v. Richards, 10 Maine, 429, 25 Am. Dec. 254 ; Hilborne v. Brown, 12 Maine, 162, and Tapley v.

Lovejoy v. Grant

434 A.2d 45 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 24, 1981

Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. … See Mack v. Cape Elizabeth School Board, 553 F.2d 720 (1st Cir. 1977). Even if Lovejoy had a contract, therefore, she was not deprived of any property right if her termination came at the end of that contract.

NICKERSON-MALPHER v. Worley

560 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 17, 2008

State v. Malpher, 947 A.2d 484 (Me.2008). … Brown v. Osier, 628 A.2d 125, 129 (Me.1993) (italics in original). 5 .

Sultan Corp. v. Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 30, 2021

Suzman v. Comm 'r, Dep 't ofHealth & Human Servs., 2005 ME 80,124, 876 A.2d 29. … See Cf Corinth Pellets, LLC v. Arch Specialty Ins.

State v. Barnies

680 A.2d 449 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 25, 1996

In People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513 , 522 N.Y.S.2d 837 , 517 N.E.2d 515 (1987), the New York Court of Appeals considered the question of the effect of a police officer’s direct inquiry on a statement’s reliability. … In State v.

Connor v. Inhabitants of Southport

136 Me. 447 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 9, 1940

Browne, inhabitants of the town of Southport in our County of Lincoln, and pursuant to the provisions of R. … Taylor v. Caribou, 102 Me., 401 at 405, 67 A., 2 . For, as said by Emery, J., in Cummings et al. v.