 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Susan L. Blanchette v. Clough, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-05-229,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Weigel v. Town of Wells, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-06-08,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co. v. Riverside Condo. Assocs., CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-06-108,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rogers v. Town of Old Orchard Beach & Seacoast Rv Resort, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-05-052,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, Docket: Kno-06-574,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in dismissing the wife's divorce complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because she had not resided in Maine for six months before she filed the complaint, as required by Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A, § 901(1), and Maine was not the home state of the children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A, § 1745.
|
|||||
| State v. Buchanan, Docket: Was-06-522,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ruling that defendant's prescription for schedule W drug was inadmissible in charge of trafficking, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 1101, was error because prescription might have made defendant's intent to traffic less probable. Prescription supported defendant's assertion that he possessed pills for his own personal use, and not to traffic.
|
|||||
| Throumoulos v. State, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV06-354,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| V. Phenix Mut. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV06-227,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nardi v. Town of Kennbunkport, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-06-026,
SUPERIOR COURT OF MAINE, YORK COUNTY, May 16, 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. |
