Case law

State v. Cleveland Grover

96 Me. 363 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 11, 1902

In this state in State v. … The statement of the rule above quoted from State v. Grant, Avas approved in Commonwealth v. Morey, 1 Gray, 461 . In a later case in Maine, State v.

Godfrey v. Rice

59 Me. 308 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1871

Wild v. Fisher, 4 Pick. 421 . In Pownal v. … In Hubbly v. Brown, 16 Johns. 71 , Spencer, J., says, “ we have regarded the indorser in the nature of a surety, and the maker of the note as the principal debtor.”

State v. Pulsifer

1999 Me. 24 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 9, 1999

See State v. Michaud, 611 A.2d 61, 63-64 (Me.1992) (defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he did not instigate the fight); State v. … See State v. Rollins, 295 A.2d 914, 921 (Me.1972); see also State v.

Bellegarde Custom Kitchens v. Leavitt

295 A.2d 909 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 25, 1972

Pray v. Millett, 122 Me. 40 , 118 A. 721 (1922); Andrew v. Bishop, supra. … Union National Bank of Wichita, Kan. v. Lamb, 337 U.S. 38 , 69 S.Ct. 911 , 93 L.Ed. 1190 (1949); Romaine v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 485 P.2d 102 (Nev. 1971); Brown v.

Dole Company v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company

269 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, D. Maine · May 3, 1967

Co. v. … It is apparent, however, that Wyman v. Brown rests upon a variation of the doctrine of ostensible ownership. In Benedict v.

Cyr v. Bd. of Licensing of Auctioneers

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 28, 2010

Clerk'c;; Office ' Cyr v. Board of Licensing of Auctioneers. AP-09-45 and AP\'1Q-1,,~AS£'(R~rior Ct. … Counsel for the Board acknowledges that under Zegel v. Board of Social Worker Licensure, 2004 1IIE 31 <]I 19, 843 A.2d 18, 23, ability to pay is a relevant consideration with respect to the costs that were assessed.

State v. McNally

443 A.2d 56 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 26, 1982

See State v. Brown, Me., 410 A.2d 1033 , 1034 n. 1 (1980). We have thoroughly reviewed defendant’s other claims of error and find no merit in any of them. The entry must be: Judgments of conviction affirmed. … Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157-60 , 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2224-2226 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979).

Wilson v. Grand Trunk Railway

57 Me. 138 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1869

The plaintiff was a passerfger on board the defendants’ cars. Her trunk had been lost while traveling over the Portland & Kennebec Railroad. … In Mayall v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 19 N.

United States v. Ticchiarelli

943 F. Supp. 77 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 2, 1996

When diluted with organic solvents, cannabis becomes either a green or brown solution. … It varies in color, but can generally be found in amber, dark green, brown, or black.

Bradstreet v. Rich

74 Me. 303 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 27, 1883

For the contract in full, see Bradstreet v. Rich, 72 Maine, 233. … State v. Benner, 64 Maine, 267. "No exception,” remarks Bell, C. J., in Cutler v. Welsh, 43 N.

Hall v. City of Auburn

567 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1983

This achievement alone establishes her as a prevailing party. 1 See, e.g., Boyd v. Ozark Air Lines, 568 F.2d 50 (8th Cir.1977); Brown v. … See Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, - U.S. at - - -, 103 S.Ct. at 1940—43; Lamphere v. Brown, 610 F.2d 46, 47 (1st Cir.1979); Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 , 892 n. 18 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc). Cf. Miles v.

Trott v. City Ins. Co.

24 F. Cas. 215 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · Apr 15, 1860

words, it provides, in effect, that any difference or dispute in relation to any loss sustained, or alleged to be sustained, shall be referred to and be determined by referees, to be chosen mutually by the assured and the board … Tattersall v. Groote, 2 Bos. & P. 131; Mitchell v. Harris, 2 Ves. Jr. 129; Street v. Rigby, 6 Ves. 815; Wellington v. Mackintosh, 2 Atk. 569; Gourlay v. The Duke of Somerset, 19 Ves. 430; Milne v.

McKenney v. Farnsworth

121 Me. 450 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 9, 1922

State v. Robb, 100 Maine, Page 194. … Commonwealth v. Crowninshield, 187 Mass., 225 . Commonwealth v. Sisson, 189 Mass., 247 . Commonwealth v. Staples, 191 Mass., 384 . Portland and Oxford Central R. R. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 46 Maine, 69. Wadleigh v.

Livonia v. Town of Rome

707 A.2d 83 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 27, 1998

McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me.1994) (quoting Hall v. Board of Envtl. … In Robinson v.

Comeau v. Town of Kitter

Superior Court of Maine · Apr 23, 2008

Rowe v. City of S. Portland, 1999 ME 81, CJ[ 5, 730 A.2d 673, 675 (citing Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914, 916 (Me. 1995)). … Substantial evidence is evidence that is sufficient for a board to have reasonably found the facts as it did. Ryan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973, 975 (Me. 1990).

Regional School Unit No. 5 v. Coastal Education Assn

Superior Court of Maine · May 22, 2014

In Board of Directors of MSAD No. 36 v. … Biddeford Board of Education v.

Town of Arundel v. Dubois Livestock, Inc.

211 A.3d 202 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 9, 2019

v. DUBOIS LIVESTOCK, INC., et al. … Registration Sys., Inc. v.

10 Exchange St. v. City of Portland

Superior Court of Maine · Mar 14, 2013

As to these issues, the court must accord substantial deference to a municipal board's findings as to whether the standards of an ordinance have been met. Town of Vassalboro v. … Thus even if the court might reach a different result if it were considering the issue independently, it may not substitute its judgment for that of the municipal board. Camp v.

Young v. Inhabs. of the Town of Waterboro

Superior Court of Maine · Feb 15, 2013

YOUNG, Plaintiffs v. ORDER AND DECISION INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WATERBORO and PAULETTE L. … The Board does not have the power to extend that deadline. However, the Superior Court does. In Viles v.

Mabee v. Town of Kennebunkport

Superior Court of Maine · Sep 21, 2010

Initially, the court notes that the Planning Board did consider the Mabees' evidence. While the Board could have given the evidence greater weight than it did, see A1uirgen Prop., Inc. v. … Initially, the court notes that the Planning Board did consider the Mabees' evidence. While the Board could have given the evidence greater weight than it did, see Muirgen Prop., Inc. v.