 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. State Tax Assessor, Docket: Ken-05-270,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| STATE v. MURPHY, CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-05-612,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, PENOBSCOT COUNTY, March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Smith v. Hawthorne, Docket: Han-04-292,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the application of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §§ 2857(1)(B) and (C) was unconstitutional where the trial court allowed in the prelitigation screening panel's finding that there was no causation, but did not allow in its finding that the doctor was negligent, the patient was denied his right to a jury trial under Me. Const. art. I, § 20.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Overseers v. Nadeau, DOCKET NO. Bar-05-03,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lawyer was publicly reprimanded for, inter alia, misconduct under Me. Bar R. 3.6(f) because he sent correspondence directly to represented parties he was opposing in litigation over ownership of accounts receivable owed to the firm. The parties were former associates in his firm, but were represented by counsel.
|
|||||
| Darling's v. Ford Motor Co., Docket: Pen-05-227,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1176 (1997 & Supp. 2002) explicitly required a manufacturer to either approve or disapprove a dealership's warranty repair claims within 30 days. A manufacturer violated the statute by charging-back paid claims after the 30-day period. Summary judgment and judgment in favor of the dealership was proper.
|
|||||
| State v. Allen, Docket: And-05-201,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the size and color of bruises on a child victim were pertinent and a photograph showed that it was more probable than not that the marks were not temporary, and the photograph was relevant as to defendant's credibility, it was admissible under Me. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403 as to the charge under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 207(1)(B).
|
|||||
| State v. Allen, Docket: And-05-202,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manslaughter conviction was affirmed as the trial court did not err in prohibiting a defense expert witness from testifying about late test results as a discovery sanction under Me. R. Crim. P. 16A. Further, the court did not err under Me. R. Evid. 401, 403, and 404(b) in allowing evidence of a spanking that defendant's husband gave the victim.
|
|||||
| Huynh v. Robbins, CIVIL ACTION Docket No. RE-01-66,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, PENOBSCOT COUNTY, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| SUPINO v. LONG SANDS GROCERY, CIVIL COURT DOCKET NO. RE-05-005,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, March 7, 2006, 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. |
