 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arrow Fastener Co. v. Wrabacon, Inc., Docket: Ken-06-304,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the value of the bagging system, and because that dispute was material to each of the purchaser's causes of action, the court erred in entering a summary judgment under Me. R. Civ. P. 56(c) in favor of the purchaser.
|
|||||
| Beane v. Me. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Docket: Ken-05-658,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the plaintiffs did not have a judgment against a doctor or a claim against his insolvent insurer at the time of their settlement, the exhaustion requirement in Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24-A, § 4443(1) (2006) did not apply; therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association.
|
|||||
| Carolan v. Bell, Docket: And-06-332,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's work schedule of 33 to 35 hours per week, virtually all of the hours available from her employer, did not make her "underemployed" as a matter of fact or law for purposes of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A, § 2001(5)(D). Trial court erred by imputing additional eight hours of income to mother in a child support proceeding.
|
|||||
| Cates v. Donahue, Docket: Yor-06-242,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a company owner was responsible for the acts of his employees or agents during a repossession, and because a purchaser made fearful when the agents made a deceptive telephone call and followed her, harassment, as defined by Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 4651(2)(A) (2006), occurred, which entitled the purchaser to a protective order.
|
|||||
| In re Nadeau, Docket: Jud-05-1,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a judge, inter alia, seriously misrepresented the professional conduct of his primary opponent for the office of probate judge, and because the judge refused to acknowledge that he acted wrongfully and violated Me. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 5(B)(2)(c), the judge was publicly censured, reprimanded, and conditionally suspended for 30 days.
|
|||||
| Morin v. Lundrigan, Docket: Yor-06-281,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in a divorce case by imputing income of $ 30,000 per year to husband pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A, § 2001(5)(D). Husband earned $ 16,000 to $ 18,000. There was no evidence that husband could have increased his earnings after additional child care costs by 66 percent by working an additional 10 hours per week.
|
|||||
| UAH-Hydro Kennebec, L.P. v. Town of Winslow, Docket: Ken-05-467,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town's assessment of hydroelectric utility's power generating plant properly considered purchase power agreement (PPA) with Central Maine Power as part of the assessment as the plant benefited from qualifying facility status under 16 U.S.C.S. § 824a-3 of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, allowing it to qualify for long-term PPA.
|
|||||
| State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Haley, Docket: Cum-06-287,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the plain language of an insurance policy clearly dictated that the insurer was to pay interest only in the instance of a judgment, and because a settlement was not a judgment, the insurer was not obligated to pay prejudgment interest in excess of its policy limit.
|
|||||
| State v. Downs, Docket: SRP-05-422,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in imposing sentence under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 1252-C. Trial court, inter alia, failed to consider manner in which defendant committed burglaries and thefts on scale of seriousness against all possible means of committing the crimes. Nature and seriousness of the crimes did not justify the maximum basic sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
