Case law

Allen v. Inh. of the Town of Westport Island

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 29, 2008

See Singal v. … See, e.g., Sierra Club v.

King Resources Co. v. Environmental Improvement Commission

270 A.2d 863 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 19, 1970

This Court in Jones v. … See De Felice v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of East Haven, 1943, 130 Conn. 156 , 32 A.2d 635 .

In Re Richards

253 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 15, 1966

Justice Frankfurter, writing for the Court in Clay v. Sun Ins. … Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 423 , 84 S.Ct. 461 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964) (concurring opinion): “Another alternative is for the District Court 1 to follow the certificate route, when one is available

Hodges v. South Berwick Water Co.

139 Me. 40 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 2, 1942

Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me., 351, 61 A., 785 , 70 L. R. A., 472. … The procedure adopted in Plante v. Canadian Nat. Rys. et al, 138 Me., 215, 23 A. (2d), 814, has no application to this case. Exceptions sustained.

Knight v. Penobscot Bay Medical Center

420 A.2d 915 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 6, 1980

Plaintiffs claim to find support for the position they urge in language appearing in People v. Brown, 88 Cal.App.3d 283 , 151 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1979). … Demay v. Roberts, 46 Mich. 160 [ 9 N.W. 146 ] (1881).” 4 . The language was from the case of DeMay v.

Singleton v. Inh. of the City of Biddeford

Superior Court of Maine · Jun 7, 2013

/~-'o;~) PHILIP AND NANCY SINGLETON, Plaintiffs v. … Also see Woodward v. Town of Newfield, 634 A.2d 1315, 17-18 (1993) and Vachon v. Town of Kennebunk, 499 A.2d 140, 141 (Me. 1985).

Snell v. Libby

137 Me. 62 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 29, 1940

First National Bank of Salem v. Redman, 57 Me., 405; Brown v. Williams, 31 Me., 404; Nason v. Grant, 21 Me., 160; 23 C. J., 511; R. S., Chap. 90, Sec. 31. … Jewett v. Whitney, 43 Me., 242; Willbanks v. Untriner, 98 Ga., 801 , 25 S. E., 841 ; Wheatley v. Tutt, 4 Kan., 166 ; Reigle v. Seiger, 2 P. & W. (Penna.), 340; McGl auflin v.

Sanchez v. Sunday River Skiway Corp.

802 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 28, 1992

See Gillchrest v. Brown, 532 A.2d 692, 693 (Me.1987) (wife’s loss of consortium claim derivative from husband’s bodily injury); Packard v. … See Box v. Walker, 453 A.2d 1181, 1183 (Me.1983).

In Re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

4 A.3d 492 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 21, 2010

Picher v. … These include nuisance, see Brown v. Watson, 47 Me. 161, 163 (1859); see also Eaton v.

The Witham Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Bar Harbor

Superior Court of Maine · Dec 22, 2010

Accordingly Plaintiff lacks standing to contest the decision of the Bar Harbor Board of Appeals that ultimately reversed the Planning Board's decision, which had initially denied the North See also Lewis v. … Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the reasons set forth in the Planning Board's decision denying North South's application do not constitute particularized need. Brooks v.

Town of Georgetown v. Montgomery

Superior Court of Maine · Nov 8, 2010

HADDOCK * * Petitioner * v. … See Christian Fellowship and Renewal Center v. Town oJUmington 2001 ME 16 ~14-18; 769 A.2d 834, 838-40.

Uliano v. Maine Bd. of Envtl. Protection

Superior Court of Maine · Oct 24, 2008

Seider v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, ~ 9, 762 A.2d 551. Uliano, ELLSC-AP-2002-00007, at 11-12. … Hannum v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, No. AP-01-3, 2002 Me. Super. LEXIS 205, *9, (November 12, 2002) (citing Lewis, 433 A.2d at 748).

Lacrosse v. Davis

Superior Court of Maine · Dec 19, 2019

Smith v. IDEXX Labs., Inc., No. CV-99-493, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 6, **5-6, (Jan. 11, 2000); Theran v. Rokoff, 602 N.E.2d 191,193 (1992); Sriberg v. Raymond, 345 N.E.2d 882, 883-84 (1976). … See Brown v.

Hale v. Petit

438 A.2d 226 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 9, 1981

Mathews v. … See Gashgai v. Board of Registration in Medicine, Me., 390 A.2d 1080 (1978).

Belfast v. Bath

137 Me. 91 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 17, 1940

He serves as clerk for the Supreme Judicial and Superior Courts and the Board of County Commissioners in connection with their work and jurisdiction in such county. He is essentially a county officer. … Inconsistency is not to be presumed because of somewhat loose or ambiguous phraseology, but must be clearly and definitely shown. ' In discussing the interpretation of statutes, the court in Smith v.

Husten v. Richards

44 Me. 182 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1857

The defendant, by himself and agent, had been on board the schooner, and had a full opportunity to examine her and ascertain her capacity before the agreement was executed. … The case of Beecher and al. v. Becktel, decided by Nelson, J., in the Admiralty Court of New York, cited from the New York Tribune, September 24, 1853, is in point, and is sustained by sound reasoning.

Maine Taxpayers Action Network v. Secretary of State

795 A.2d 75 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 17, 2002

MTAN relies on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. … Id. at 192 , 119 S.Ct. 636 (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974)).

Levesque v. Fraser Paper Limited

159 Me. 131 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 26, 1963

Creighton, 95 Me. 154 , 49 A. 663 ; and Wilbur v. … Cases on point are found in Brown v. Trustees, Leland Stanford University, 182 P. 316, 319 (under headnote 5) (Cal., District Court of Appeal, 1919) Owner’s duty to notify contractor or employee; Calvert v.

Scott Paper Co. v. Johnson

156 Me. 19 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 7, 1960

Roberts v. Glander, 156 Ohio St. 247 , 102 N. E. (2nd) 242 concerns itself with definition and meaning of “price” as used in its Sales Tax Law. … Donnelly Garment Co. v. National Labor Relation Board, 123 F. (2nd) 215.

State v. Melvin

390 A.2d 1024 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1978

Roberts, the only witness as to the cause of death, was not a competent witness for that purpose because he was not certified by a Board of Forensic Pathologists and was not acquainted with the factual circumstances of the … Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1 , 81 S.Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961); Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 438 , 95 L.Ed. 344 (1951); Hale v.