 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Foley v. Verizon, Docket: WCB-06-341,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As coordination of benefits under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 221 was based on weekly payments of benefits, and as neither statute nor tables provided formula for determining weekly benefits from lump sum pension, hearing officer properly based weekly amount on periodic benefit employee would have received if he had not taken lump sum pension.
|
|||||
| Jefts v. Dennis, Docket: Yor-06-639,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in entering a protection from harassment order pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 4651 et seq. because limited record showed that former wife's repeated e-mail messages and embarrassing facsimile messages, sent to former husband's office, constituted three or more acts of intimidation directed against former husband.
|
|||||
| Heon v. State, Docket: And-06-153,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for postconviction relief relating to appellant's guilty pleas was proper because evidence did not compel findings that appellant's attorneys failed to inform him as to maximum sentence, that appellant was unaware of potential penalty, or that the performance of his attorneys was below the ordinary fallible attorney standard.
|
|||||
| State v. Estabrook, Docket: Aro-06-642,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized by means of a warrant was proper because the use of the present tense in the affidavit and the large quantity claimed allowed an inference that marijuana could have been found currently at a shack behind defendant's home. The affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause.
|
|||||
| Pease v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Docket: Lin-06-566,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured, a detective, was injured when man ran over him with insured's patrol car. Provision in insured's UM policy stating that an "uninsured motor vehicle" did not include vehicle "furnished for the insured's regular use" did not apply, since once man stole car, it stopped being vehicle furnished for insured's use and was simply a stolen vehicle.
|
|||||
| Doe v. DA, Docket: Ken-06-757,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gauthier v. Gauthier, Docket: And-06-723,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| R.C. Moore, Inc. v. Les-Care Kitchens, Inc., Docket: Cum-06-334,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Diecidue, Docket: Pen-06-310,
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, September 25, 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. |
