Case law

BAY COMMUNICATIONS III LLC v. CITY OF ROCKLAND

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 26, 2021

See Inhabitants of Town of Boothbay Harbor v. … Russell, 410 A.2d 554, 560-61 & 557 n.3 (Me. 1980) (rejecting the idea that a zoning board or one of its members might be a partisan in actions pertaining to its decisions); see also Levesque v.

In re Carol A. Boardman

166 A.3d 106 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 27, 2017

State v. Vandenburg, 2 A.2d 916, 919 (Del. Gen. Sess. Ct. 1938) (quotation marks omitted); see Motley v. Sawyer, 38 Me. 68, 73 (1854); Moody v. … Rand v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 2003 ME 122, ¶ 9, 832 A.2d 771.

Forster v. Town of Kittery

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 6, 2004

Priestly v. Town of Hermon, 2003 ME 9, q 6, 814 A.2d 995, 997. The Superior Court will affirm the Board’s decision unless it is unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Senders v. … With regard to the factual determinations made by the Board, the burden is on Plaintiff to prove that based on the evidence the board should have reached a contrary conclusion. Britton v.

Dyer v. Town of Hudson

Superior Court of Maine · Jan 14, 2002

Christian Fellowship and Renewal Center v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, { 17, 769 A.2d 834, 840. 11 Center v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, 7 19, 769 A.2d 834, 840; Pearson , 590 A.2d at 537 n.1; Driscoll v. … In Turbat Creek Preservation, LLC v.

Hannaford v. Town of Kennebunk

Superior Court of Maine · Feb 6, 2006

V, p. 1835. … In Bruk v.

Adams v. Town of Brunswick

Superior Court of Maine · Feb 13, 2009

This is not unusual, see Viles v. … See, e.g., Rangeley Crossroads Coalition v. LURC, 2008 ME 115 <J[<J[ 12-13, 955 A.2d 223, 227-29; Lentine v. Town of St.

Lake Region Furniture v. Town of Gorham

Superior Court of Maine · Apr 24, 2003

Planning Board Decision In its deliberations, the Planning Board properly distinguished between nonconforming uses, and nonconforming structures or lots. R. at 429: see Oliver v. … See Oliver v.

Willette's Case

135 Me. 254 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 15, 1937

Tea Co. v. Ind. Commission, 347 Ill., 596 , 180 N. E., 460 , 83 A. L. R., 1208; Eugene Dietzen Co. v. Ind. Board, 279 Ill., 11 , 116 N. E., 684 ; Michael v. Henry et al., 209 Pa., 213 , 58 A., 125 ; Mann v. … A., 1918 A., 217 ; Stagg v. Western Tea & Spice Co., 169 Mo., 489 , 69 S. W., 391 , where a floor cleaner left his work, began to operate a bolting saw and was injured; Bullard v.

John McClare v. James J. Rocha

86 A.3d 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 14, 2014

Brown Dev. Corp. v. … See Lamle v. Mattel, Inc., 394 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (an email satisfies the California statute of frauds); Cloud Corp. v.

Saunders v. Town of Standish

Superior Court of Maine · Jan 26, 2006

Persson v. … Substantial evidence is evidence that is sufficient for a board to have reasonably found the facts as it did. Ryan v.

Magnetic Resonance Technologies of Maine Ltd. Partnership v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services

652 A.2d 655 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 19, 1995

Foley v. Adam, 638 A.2d 718, 719 (Me.1994); Dawson v. Lussier, 632 A.2d 128, 129 (Me.1993). … Wood v. Superintendent of Insurance, 638 A.2d 67, 70 (Me.1994); International Paper Co. v. Board of Envtl. Protection, 629 A.2d 597, 599 (Me.1993).

Hall v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

436 A.2d 863 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 29, 1981

Brown v. State, Department of Manpower Affairs, Me., 426 A.2d 880, 886 (1981). We have examined Hall’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring. . … We have dealt with such a problem under 24 M.R.S.A. § 2903 in Dougherty v.

Uliano v. Maine Bd. of Envtl. Prot.

Superior Court of Maine · Feb 18, 2003

The Law Court in Steward v. … Seider v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, q9, 762 A.2d 551. In light of the Petitioner’s burden, they have failed to demonstrate that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Jewett v. Patridge

12 Me. 243 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 15, 1835

plaintiff’s testimony it appeared, that the frame was erected by the father, in the fall of 1826 or 1827; hut it must have been in 1826, — for in December of that year, tire father gave a bill of sale of the house frame and the boards … Russell v. Richards & al. 1 Fairf. 429, and the cases there cited.

Doe v. Cape Elizabeth Sch. Dep't

382 F. Supp. 3d 83 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 4, 2019

Maine education law is to the same effect and empowers the Maine State Board of Education to "formulate[ ] policy and enforce[ ] the regulatory requirements of school administrative units." Goodwin v. School Admin. … A.S. v.

Olson v. Secretary of State

689 A.2d 605 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 27, 1997

See also, Wagner v. … In Wagner v.

Spurwink Svs., Inc. v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs.

Superior Court of Maine · Aug 4, 2010

The only question is whether the 2009 Appropriations Act requires DHHS to adopt new rules setting a standard room and board relte. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, Garrisoll City Broad., ll1c. v. … Ass 'II (:f HCI7/t/1 P/nlls v. SlIpcrilltcndcnt of 1115.,2007 ME 69, <j[ 32,923 A.2d 918, 927; Cobb v. Bd. OrCol/llsc/illS Prof'/s Liccllsl/rc, 2006 ME 48, <]I 13,896 A.2d 271, 275).

State v. Blakesley

989 A.2d 746 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 11, 2010

See United States v. … United States v.

Norris Family Assocs. v. Town of Phippsburg

Superior Court of Maine · Dec 3, 2004

appeal to the local zoning board first before turning to this court. Gagne v. Lewiston Crushed Stone Co., Inc., 367 A.2d 613, 618-19 (Me. 1976). See also Brackett v. … To establish standing, the party “must (1) have appeared before the board of appeals; and (2) be able to demonstrate a - particularized injury as a result of the board’s action.” Id. (quoting Rowe v.

Ireland v. Clark

109 Me. 239 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 19, 1912

Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Maine, 9. Approved in Treat v. Lord, 42 Maine, 552. … In the case of Quarman v.