Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersME

2,605 results

2.62s

  • Hills v. Gardiner Savings Institution

    309 A.2d 877 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 3, 1973

    The N.I.L. clearly indicates the requirements for creating an effective endorsement of a negotiable instrument such as the note in question. … The writing itself says that the Plaintiff “qualifies and restricts his contingent liability as an endorser upon said promissory note . . . .”

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Kidder v. RICHMOND AREA HEALTH CENTER, INC.

    595 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 29, 2009

    United States Citing statutory law, the Federal Defendants contend that the United States is the sole proper defendant in an action against defendants deemed Public Health Service employees and approved delivery sites for qualifying … Both the FTCA and the MHSA establish procedural preconditions to the filing of a cause of action under the respective statutes.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Bruns v. Mayhew

    931 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 14, 2013

    “The party seeking the preliminary injunction bears the burden of establishing that these four factors weigh in its favor.” Id. … First, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not established that the Commissioner violated their equal protection rights.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Percy v. Allen

    449 A.2d 337 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 13, 1982

    Oliver further testified that he considered the plaintiff to so qualify. Oliver described the training program in use for new guards in 1977 as a “shadow program.” … A comparison of the Maine and federal formulations of the BFOQ defense, see notes 6 and 7 supra, reveals that the BFOQ exception set forth in the state statute “is *343 not as clearly stated as the federal exception.”

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Carmichael v. Verso Paper, LLC

    679 F. Supp. 2d 109 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 5, 2010

    Carmichael has a qualifying disability — is not contested; the Court turns to the second and third elements. ii. Qualified Individual Mr. … Carmichael must establish that: (1) he suffered from a “disability” within the meaning of the statute; (2) he was a qualified individual in that he was able to perform the essential functions of his job, either with or without

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • State of Maine v. Alexandre

    Superior Court of Maine · Oct 4, 2016

    Infante- Ruiz, 13 F.3d 498, 502 (1 51 Cir. 1994) ("It is now established that if the police have probable cause to believe that either a vehicle or a container within a vehicle contains contraband, evi ence of crime, or other … [T]he Act provides a limited immunity - not a shield from reasonable investigation. Id. at 310-11 (internal citations omitted). See also People v. Waxler, 168 Cal.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • State v. Rippy

    626 A.2d 334 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1993

    . ****** For the limited purpose [of determining] whether or not she qualifies as a witness at this stage, I’m going to rule she qualifies. … Rippy, therefore, failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the prein-dictment delay.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • McIlwain v. Cumberland County Sheriff's Office

    Superior Court of Maine · Oct 26, 2020

    A party's opposing statement of material facts "must explicitly admit, deny or qualify facts by reference to each numbered paragraph, and a denial or qualification must be supported by a record citation." Stanley v. … Therefore, the "public buildings" exception to immunity does not apply and Defendant is immune from liability.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Covenant Health, Inc. v. The Maine Human Rights Commission

    Superior Court of Maine · Aug 13, 2021

    Mary's Health System, and their parent companies Covenant Health, Inc. and Covenant Health Systems, qualify as health care entities or health care providers covered by Section 2511. … As enumerated above, Section 2511 's three subsections establish the categories of conduct engaged in while serving on a professional competence committee and warranting immunity under the statute: 1) repotiing, 2) assisting

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Fiandaca v. City of Bangor

    Superior Court of Maine · Jun 5, 2002

    However, the scope of the school’s function clearly exceeds the playground’s, and the use of the playground presumably exceeds the school’s. … See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-B(3) (immunity for negligent performance of discretionary functions); Selby, 2002 ME 80, J 7, --- A.2d at --- (“An act qualifies as a discretionary function is the act is essential to the realization

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Lyons v. Louisiana Pacific Corp.

    217 F. Supp. 2d 171 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 4, 2002

    Alfred Calcagni & Sons, Inc., 44 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1994) (“When an interested witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions, he cannot create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly … As discussed above, Lyons has not established any genuine issues of material fact in dispute on this point.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Sayward v. Sayward

    7 Me. 210 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 15, 1831

    If Samuel had died under age and without issue, in the life time of Ebenezer, then it would clearly have been a good executory devise of the estate to him. … The court decided in favor of the demandant, and established his title. The second is the before cited case of Ray v. Euslin.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Throumoulos v. State of Maine

    Superior Court of Maine · May 15, 2007

    , and qualified or absolute privilege, among others. … Facts asserted in a statement of material facts that are not appropriately denied or qualified are deemed admitted. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). 2.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Gurski v. Culpovich

    540 A.2d 764 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 1988

    Clearly, the earlier malicious prosecution suit and the instant emotional distress suit involved the same parties. … They argue, however, that the evidence does not establish that their conduct was intentional or extreme and outrageous.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Cohen v. Ketchum

    344 A.2d 387 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 19, 1975

    Smith stated: “Our court has very clearly defined the limits of such right. … If a majority of the voters favored the status quo, a “no” vote by them would clearly maintain it; if the majority wished to increase the authorized indebtedness, their “yes” votes would establish the increase.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Soper v. Lawrence Bros.

    98 Me. 268 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 11, 1903

    The verdict of the jury establishing these facts was clearly warranted by the evidence. … If the acts enumerated are performed by one who “claims by virtue of a recorded deed to be the owner of the entire tract, and one who ,ias maintained such qualified possession for tAventy years in assertion of an exclusive

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Thacher Hotel, Inc. v. Economos

    160 Me. 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 4, 1964

    Fifth — To invalidate a contract on the ground of public policy, the “impropriety of a transaction,” to use Professor Williston’s words, must be clearly established. 5 Williston, supra, § 1629A. Our court in Bell v. … The defendant has failed at the least to establish clearly any impropriety compelling the invalidation of the contract on grounds of public policy.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Burgess v. American Bond & Trust Co.

    103 Me. 378 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 31, 1907

    The only question, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs have established their claims by judgments against the principal defendant in his trust capacity, so as to fulfill the requirements of the statute. … The declarations should have clearly indicated by proper aver-ments that a suit against the defendant in the purely statutory capacity of surviving partner was intended, and the judgments should have been against him and

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Walker v. Provost

    566 A.2d 749 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 30, 1989

    The Superior Court is required to accept the referee’s factual findings on these issues unless they are clearly erroneous. M.R. Civ.P. 53(e)(2). … The referee found Smart to be a qualified and expert surveyor and gave his testimony considerable weight. See Sargent v.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • State v. Leavitt

    625 A.2d 302 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 5, 1993

    Clearly I can’t ask for the chemist if I don’t know there’s a drug analysis and, therefore, there’s something to request, ... … Leavitt also failed to request that the State be required to produce a qualified witness. 9 Based on the record before us, we find that Leavitt failed to establish that he suffered any prejudice to the level of depriving

    Cited 5 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.