Case law

Whitmore ex rel. Fisher v. Church of the Holy Cross

121 Me. 391 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 9, 1922

In Erhardt v. … Marwick v. Andrews, 25 Maine, 525, at 530; Board of Education v. First Baptist Church, 63 Ill., 204 ; First Presby. Church v. Elliott, 65 S. C., 251.

United States v. Feliz

20 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 10, 1998

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). … As such, the principles set forth in Wong Sun and Brown are applicable.

Acadia Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

844 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 15, 1994

Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), held that “the Sherman Act does not apply ‘to the anticompetitive conduct of a State acting through its legislature.’ ” 324 Liquor Corp. v. … See Mahaney v.

Town of Castine v. Fitzsimmons

Superior Court of Maine · Mar 4, 2004

In order to prove overvaluation in the first of these three ways, the taxpayer must present evidence of just value that the board can then evaluate and then compare to the assessed value. See City of Waterville v. … Town of Vienna v. Kokernak, 612 A.2d 870, 872-73 (Me. 1992).

Varney v. United Parcel Service

Superior Court of Maine · Aug 7, 2005

i CHRISTOPHER BROWN, ESQ. … (Chkistopher Brown, Esq.) with Exhibit 1 and a proposed order.

Equifax Services, Inc. v. Cohen

420 A.2d 189 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 9, 1980

See Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of New York, - U.S. -, -, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 2331 , 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. … See also Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-82 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2706-2708 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); Virginia Pharmacy Board, supra, 425 U.S. at 771, n. 24 , 96 S.Ct. at 1830, n. 24 ; Friedman v.

Fairfield v. Paine

23 Me. 498 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1844

In Emerson v. … Whittier v. Varney, 10 N. H.

In re Standard Shipyard Co.

262 F. 522 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 8, 1920

A. 547 , under the name of Van Emon et al. v. Veal; Burbank Co. Case (D. C.) 168 Fed. 719 (opinion by Judge Aldrich). … In Rollins v.

Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co.

146 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 10, 2001

See Gonzalez-Morales v. Hernandez-Arencibia, 221 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir.2000). … See City of Los Angeles v.

Patten v. Fullerton

27 Me. 58 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 1847

Lord Chancellor Cowper, in the case of Whitlock v. … Henry Tallman testified “ that a portion of what he received from Fullerton was paid in lumber, boards, and timber, for his own use.”

Cutts v. York Manufacturing Co.

18 Me. 190 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1841

Bachelder was the general agent of the tenants, and in 1833, appeared before the board of assessors in Saco, for the purpose of inducing them not to set the premises in question, in their assessment, to the company, against … Chadwick v. Webber, 3 Greenl. 141. The fact that the deed was prepared by the counsel for the tenants, does not dispense with delivery.

Gauthier v. Gerrish Corp.

Superior Court of Maine · Aug 25, 2014

BROWN, Personal ~epresentative Of the Estate of Shirley Gauthier,' Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH LENKOWSKI, ESQ., Successor Trustee of the Roland E. … Brown, Personal Representative of the Estate ov Shirley Gauthier, as "succ~ssor ~o Shirley Gauthier's in~erest in the judgment by default ... and for all purposes in connection w1th any further proceedmgs that may become

Wilson v. Inhabs. of the City of Saco

Superior Court of Maine · Nov 2, 2004

and Zoning Board Appeals. … Hodson v. Town of Hermon, 2000 ME 181, 75, 760 A.2d 221, 222.

Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court Given Under the Provisions of Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution Question Propounded by the Senate in an Order Dated April 17, 1957

152 Me. 440 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 26, 1957

See Moseley v. York Shore Water Co., 94 Me. 83 (water supply); Hayford v. Bangor, 102 Me. 340 (library); Crommett v. City of Portland, 150 Me. 217, 233 (slum clearance) . … .”; Bowden v.

Stillings v. Town of North Berwick

Superior Court of Maine · Sep 9, 2002

That request was denied by the North Berwick Zoning Board of Appeals and this appeal followed. The plaintiffs’ complaint to the Superior Court consisted of three counts. … Goldstein v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 66, 94, 728 A.2d 164, 165. The permitted land uses for the farm and forest district are found in a table on page 4-9A of the Town’s ordinance.

BMG Music v. MARSTERS

616 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, D. Maine · May 22, 2009

.”); United States v. V & E Eng’g & Constr. … Records, Inc. v. Brown, No. C 08-01040 WHA, 2008 WL 4911161 , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95171 (N.D.Cal.2008); Sony Pictures Home Entm’t Inc. v. Lott, 471 F.Supp.2d 716 (N.D.Tex.2007); Warner Bros. Records Inc. v.

Langley v. Home Indemnity Company

272 A.2d 740 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 21, 1971

Allison v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., Fla.App., 222 So.2d 254 (1969); Ball v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, 201 Cal.App.2d 85 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 31 (1962), Oatis v. … (emphasis supplied by plaintiffs) (Quoted by plaintiffs from In re Brown’s Estate, 168 Kan. 612 , 215 P.2d 203, 207 (1950).

National Council on Compensation Insurance v. Superintendent of Insurance

481 A.2d 775 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 6, 1984

See Gulick v. Board of Environmental Protection 452 A.2d 1202, 1208 (Me.1982); Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, 450 A.2d 475, 479 (Me.1982). II. … Singleton Co. v. Rush, 463 A.2d 282 , 283 n. 2 (Me.1983); State v. Siegfried, 460 A.2d 1382, 1383 (Me.1983); State v. Earley, 454 A.2d 341 , 344 n. 8 (Me.1983).

Office of Advocacy v. Bangor Mental Health Inst.

Superior Court of Maine · Jul 20, 2001

McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994) (quoting Hall v. Board of Envti. Protection, 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me. 1985). I. … United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551, 116 S. Ct. 1529, 1533 (1996); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver.

State v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada

58 Me. 176 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1870

And the court in Massachusetts held to the same doctrine in Carey v. Berk. R. R. Co., 1 Cush. 475 . The subject was discussed, with great ability, by Sprague, J., in Cutting v. … But they are not bound or required to go after those who have gone away and out of sight and out of reach of the voice, which gives the usual loud and distinct notice for all to repair on board.