 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Batchelder v. Realty Res. Hospitality, LLC, Docket: Pen-06-151,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not obvious error to instruct a jury on an integrated enterprise theory as to claimed civil rights violations, to which the employer did not object at trial. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 2613 (2006) did not state a legislative intent to require less than clear and convincing proof to recover punitive damages for employment discrimination.
|
|||||
| In re Nadeau, Docket: Jud-05-01,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judge violated Me. Code Jud. Conduct 5(B)(2)(c) by knowingly misrepresenting, in a political advertisement, the contents of a videotape of one of his opponents, but it was not shown that his factually incorrect representations concerning another opponent were made with actual knowledge of the fact in question, so they were not made knowingly.
|
|||||
| State v. Black, Docket: Yor-05-336,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although trial court fully and effectively explained its reasons for imposing five-year sentence and for balancing manifold goals of sentencing to determine the unsuspended portion of the sentence under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 1201, the trial court did not address reason for imposing four years of probation, and remand was required.
|
|||||
| State v. Hamel, Docket: Cum-06-200,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record supported finding that officer had independent recollection of event, and trial court did not err in allowing officer's testimony and his use of notes pursuant to Me. R. Evid. 612. Also, trial court did not err by limiting relevant questioning of officer on basis of delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Thongsavanh, Docket: And-06-46,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although criminally negligent manslaughter was charged when State charged defendant with depraved indifference murder, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 201(1-A), court was not required to instruct on lesser-included offense as there was no basis in evidence for finding defendant guilty of lesser offense, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 13-A(1).
|
|||||
| Cheung v. Wu, Docket: Ken-06-54,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a creditor was on notice that debtors were claiming that they could offset what they owed by what they paid on the creditor's liabilities in the creditor's action to collect on a promissory note, a trial court did not err when it interpreted its pretrial orders to include the equitable defense of recoupment.
|
|||||
| Melton-Matthews v. Casella Waste Sys., CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-06-307,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| DONAHUE v. LILLEY, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-06-216,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, KENNEBEC COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Woods v. Inhabitants of York, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NOS. AP-02-042, AP-02-043, AP-02-044,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
