 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fuschetti v. Murray, Docket: Cum-05-232,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 7552, in its current form, did not allow for the recovery of costs for replanting and restoring trees which were cut down by an owner's neighbor. However, the trial court erred in awarding the owner common law damages for the same tree damage awarded under the statute.
|
|||||
| Grenier v. Grenier, Docket: And-05-526,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A, § 1653(3), a trial court did not err in continuing the parties' child sharing arrangement and ordering that the children remain in their home school system regardless of where the wife chose to live. Trial court considered, inter alia, duration and adequacy of children's current living arrangements.
|
|||||
| Logan v. City of Biddeford, Docket: Yor-05-347,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Vacating decision of zoning appeals board, which had vacated issuance of a building permit to property owner, was error; general ordinance, Biddeford, Me., Coastal Residential Zone Ordinance art. IV, § 5(D)(1), as the more restrictive ordinance between two ordinances that conflicted, applied and required the denial of his permit application.
|
|||||
| State v. Schofield, Docket: SRP-05-622,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's findings that manslaughter victim's death by asphyxiation set the case apart from other child manslaughter cases because it meant that the victim's death was slow, accompanied by "substantial conscious suffering," and could have been equated to torture, was proper comparison pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 1252-C(1).
|
|||||
| State v. Bennett, Docket: Cum-05-607,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant wore leg restraints at trial, his right to due process was not violated. Prejudice was not shown under Me. R. Crim. P. 52(a), as the restraints, worn under defendant's pants, were not visible to the jury, defendant did not walk in the presence of the jury, and defendant was able to effectively assist his counsel by testifying.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
