 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| MORRILL v. MAINE TURNPIKE AUTH., CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-05-097,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Aucoin, Docket No. 02-RE-110,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, PENOBSCOT COUNTY, April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| ATLANTIC REGIONAL FED. CREDIT UNION v. ROBERT & MARY, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-05-100,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, April 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| ALDERETTE v. JARVIS, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-03-079,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. CO. v. HALEY, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV-06-058,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Anderson v. Town of Durham, Docket: Cum-04-591,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20-A, § 2951(2), which excluded sectarian schools from payment of public funds for tuition at certain private schools, did not violate parents' equal protection rights because the State's concern to avoid excessive entanglements between government and religion provided a rational basis to maintain the funding limitation.
|
|||||
| Hoglund v. Aaskov Plumbing & Heating, Docket: WCB-05-280,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearing officer properly denied an employer's petition for review of a worker's incapacity, because pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 313(1) (2005), in order to merit a reduction in benefits, the employer was required to demonstrate a change in the worker's economic or medical circumstances since a prior mediation session.
|
|||||
| Schwartz v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, Docket: Han-04-525,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in upholding a finding that a worker was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, because an agency's finding that a charitable organization was exempt from unemployment taxation pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, § 1043(11)(F)(21)(a) (2005), contained a conclusory restatement of the terms of the statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Smen, Docket: Han-05-513,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence that defendant terrorized defendant's wife's boyfriend pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 210(1)(A) where State showed that defendant communicated to boyfriend that he intended to kill him, and natural and probable consequence of threat was to put the boyfriend in reasonable fear that defendant would do so.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
