Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691 (Me. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691 (Me. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
126 citation events (114 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Applegate Ass'n No. 1 v. Collins, No. CUMre-21-57 (Me. Super. Ct Apr. 28, 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 693 Criteria for granting injunctive relief77 citing cases“(1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting the injunctive relief would inflict on the defendant, (3) that plaintiff has exhibited a likelihood of success on the merits (at most, a probability; at least,…”5 citing courts quote it
  • Applegate Ass'n No. 1 v. Collins, No. CUMre-21-57 (Me. Super. Ct Apr. 28, 2023).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Firefly Builders, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-05079 (D.S.D. Oct. 18, 2022).
    Analysis In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, this Court considers the factors set forth in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.,: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance…
  • Drew v. Dougrey, No. CUMcv-21-250 (Me. Super. Ct Jan. 20, 2022).unpublished
    Prot. v. Emerson, 563 A.2d 762, 768 (Me. 1989); Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Ed Hamilton, Inc. v. Rubsamen, No. CUMcv-21-141 (Me. Super. Ct July 8, 2021).unpublished
    Bangor Historic Track Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 2003 ME 140 ~ 9, 837 A.2d 129 ; Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Griffeth v. Gagnon's Rental Props., LLC, No. AROcv-20-77 (Me. Super. Ct May 13, 2021).unpublished
    Prat. v. Emerson, 563 A.2d 762, 768 (Me. 1989); Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691,693 (Me. 1982).
  • Bonin v. Stanton, No. CUMre-20-98 (Me. Super. Ct Mar. 5, 2021).unpublished
    Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691,693 (Me. 1982); see Dep't ofEnvtl.
  • Jeffrey v. Bailey, No. CUMbcd-cv-20-43 (Me. Super. Ct Feb. 1, 2021).unpublished
    Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Old Town Util. & Tech. Park, LLC. v. Consol. Edison Solutions, Inc., No. CUMbcd-cv-20-17 (Me. Super. Ct Nov. 5, 2020).unpublished
    “plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted”
  • Ne. Patients Grp., Inc. v. Canwell, LLC, No. CUMcv-19-0357 (Me. Super. Ct Oct. 7, 2019).unpublished
    Prat. v. Emerson, 663 A.2d 762, 768 (Me. 1989); Ingraham v. Univ. ef Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Kittery Foreside, LLC v. Livingston, No. CUMbcd-cv-19-22 (Me. Super. Ct May 20, 2019).unpublished
    Bangor Historic Track Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 2003 ME 140, ¶ 9 , 837 A.2d 129 ; Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
Show 67 more citing cases
  • Searles v. Girouard, No. CUMre-18-110 (Me. Super. Ct July 24, 2018).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ . of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Old Town Util. & Tech. Park, LLC v. MFGR, LLC, No. CUMbcd-re-17-11 (Me. Super. Ct May 25, 2018).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • F.C. Beacon Grp., Inc. v. Bleanger, No. CUMbcd-cv-17-42 (Me. Super. Ct May 8, 2018).unpublished
    Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691,693 (Me. 1982); Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 2003 ME 140 , ~ 9, 837 A.2d 129, 132 . 4 IV.
  • Washington Cnty. v. Fitzpatrick, No. KENap-18-06 (Me. Super. Ct Mar. 14, 2018).unpublished
    Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982); Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Department ofAgriculture, 2003 ME 140 , ! 9, 837 A.2d 129, 132 . 4 III.
  • Gregory v. Clark, No. YORcv-16-0182 (Me. Super. Ct Oct. 3, 2017).unpublished
    Prot. v. Emerson, 563 A.2d 762, 768 (Me. 1989); Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982)); M.
  • Orkin, LLC v. Morse, No. CUMbcd-cv-17-22 (Me. Super. Ct June 28, 2017).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691,693 (Me. 1982).
  • Covino v. Goodrich, No. SAGre-14-22 (Me. Super. Ct June 8, 2017).unpublished
    In Ingraham v. University 0£ Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982), The Law Court set forth the criteria that generally must be met by the party seeking a permanent injunction: (1) [defendants] would suffer irreparable injury il the…
  • Supreme Xtract, LLC v. LaPlante, No. YORcv-17-0084 (Me. Super. Ct May 9, 2017).unpublished
    The court reviews the application under the standards set out in Rule 65 and Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).2 A party seeking temporary injunctive relief must first demonstrate that "immediate and ir…
  • State of Maine v. Champagne, No. ANDcv-12-60 (Me. Super. Ct Jan. 23, 2017).unpublished
    “Before granting a preliminary or permanent injunction, the Court must find that four criteria are met: (1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (2) that such injury outweighs a…”
  • Wenger v. Goulette, No. CUMcv-16-318 (Me. Super. Ct Nov. 10, 2016).unpublished 4 cites
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Ctr. v. Halliday, No. CUMre-10-317 (Me. Super. Ct Nov. 10, 2016).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Tiernan v. Feeney, No. YORre-16-0037 (Me. Super. Ct Aug. 30, 2016).unpublished
    Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep 't of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 2003 ME 140 , err 9, 837 A.2d 129 ; Ingraham v. Univ. of Me. at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Manirakiza v. Maine Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. KENap-16-07 (Me. Super. Ct June 28, 2016).unpublished
    Motion for Preliminary Injunction Petitioners move the Court to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining Mary Mayhew, DHHS, and all agents and employees thereof from denying the named Petitioners and all members of the proposed class food…
  • Lachance v. Wood, No. CUMre-15-122 (Me. Super. Ct Oct. 2, 2015).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Est. of Merrill P. Robbins v. Inhabitants of the Town of Cumberland, No. CUMap-15-35 (Me. Super. Ct Sept. 15, 2015).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Maine-ly Hearing v. Whittier, No. CUMcv-15-186 (Me. Super. Ct June 11, 2015).unpublished
    Callahan & Sons v. City of Malden, 713 N.E.2d 955, 960 (Mass. 1999) with Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982). 3 Defendant is now employed by MAC Hearing Aids, LLC in Portland, Maine, which is within a ten mile rad…
  • Frye v. Frye, No. CUMcv-15-053 (Me. Super. Ct Feb. 18, 2015).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Me. at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982). 1.
  • Adams v. Maine Mun. Assn, No. CUMcv-14-18 (Me. Super. Ct Dec. 15, 2014).unpublished
    Pfallltl[[ls Not EllfitMlto 111/rmclive Relief 011 Counts V mul VI Before granting on injunction, Maine courts must fmd the following criteria: ( 1) that plalnti ff will suffer irrepnrable injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) that…
  • Landry/French Constr. Co. v. Lisbon Sch. Dep't., No. CUMap-14-052 (Me. Super. Ct Dec. 1, 2014).unpublished 2 cites
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Me. at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Bitumar USA, Inc. v. Maine Dept. of Transp., No. CUMbcd-cv-14-050 (Me. Super. Ct Aug. 1, 2014).unpublished
    In the leading case of Ingraham v. University ofMaine at Orono, the Law Court held, "Before granting a preliminary injunction, the Court must find that four criteria are met: (I) that plaintiffwill suffer irreparable injury if the injuncti…
  • Richardson v. Decoste, No. YORcv-12-187 (Me. Super. Ct July 18, 2014).unpublished
    DATE: John O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court (3) that plaintiff has exhibited a likelihood of success on the merits (at most, a probability; at least, a substantial possibility), (4) that the public interest will not be adversely affecte…
  • Leedberg v. Romano, No. YORcv-13-221 (Me. Super. Ct June 25, 2014).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. ofMaine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691,693 (Me. 1982).
  • Farm Credit of Maine v. Bessey, No. CUMcv-13-81 (Me. Super. Ct Mar. 20, 2014).unpublished
    With respect to the Defendants' request for a tempormy rcstmining ordc1· bnrring collection and possession of the coUateral by Plaintiff, nud to enjoin its sale, the pnrties agree that the Defendants must meet all fom criteria set forth in…
  • Concordia Partners v. Pick, No. CUMcv-13-135 (Me. Super. Ct Dec. 27, 2013).unpublished
    Bangor Historic Track Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 2003 ME 140 'li 9, 837 A.2d 129 ; Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Collins v. State of Maine, No. CUMcv-12-0394 (Me. Super. Ct Dec. 6, 2013).unpublished 2 cites
    Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me.1982).
  • Fluckiger v. Bayley, No. YORcv-12-159 (Me. Super. Ct Oct. 31, 2013).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691,693 (Me. 1982).
  • J.D Stewart Fin., Inc. v. Lee, No. YORcv-13-56 (Me. Super. Ct Mar. 7, 2013).unpublished
    Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • In re Maine Today Media, Inc. State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr., 2013 ME 12, 59 A.3d 499.published 4 cites
    Id. ¶ 9 (citing Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me.1982)).
  • OccupyMaine v. City of Portland, No. CUMcv-11-549 (Me. Super. Ct Feb. 1, 2012).unpublished
    Bangor Historic Track Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 2003 ME 140 'li 9, 837 A.2d 129, 132 ; Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Giroux v. Indian Point Owners Ass'n, No. CUMcv-10-120 (Me. Super. Ct Oct. 26, 2011).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Vacation Hotdeal Cos., Inc. v. Easy Timeshare Resales, No. CUMcv-11-054 (Me. Super. Ct Mar. 10, 2011).unpublished
    Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • McGettigan v. Town of Freeport, No. CUMcv-10-464 (Me. Super. Ct Nov. 17, 2010).unpublished
    Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 2003 ME 140 , <IT 9, 837 A.2d 129, 132 ; Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982). "[P]roof of irreparable injury is a prerequisite to the granting of injunctive relief." Bar Harbor Banking…
  • Isherwood v. City of Portland, No. CUMre-09-201 (Me. Super. Ct Feb. 26, 2010).unpublished
    P. 65(b)(1), the moving must demonstrate: (1) that it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, (2) that any harm to the opposing party if an injunction is granted is outweighed by the harm to the movant if an inj lUlction is not…
  • MacImage of Maine v. Hancock Cnty., No. CUMcv-08-589 (Me. Super. Ct Sept. 1, 2009).unpublished
    E.g., Bangor Historic Track Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 2003 ME 140 'li 9, 837 A.2d at 132 ; Ingraham v. University of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Machiavelli v. Magnusson, No. CUMcv-05-452 (Me. Super. Ct July 30, 2009).unpublished
    Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Olfene v. Bd. of Trs., No. KENcv-08-155 (Me. Super. Ct Dec. 4, 2008).unpublished
    Id.; Ingraham v. Univ. of Maine, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982).
  • Knutson v. Dep't of Sec'y of State, 2008 ME 124, 954 A.2d 1054.published 2 cites
    (standard for injunctive relief)
  • Caraboolad v. Indian Ridge Homeowners All., No. YORre-06-50and58, 2007 Me. Super. LEXIS 156 (Me. Super. Ct Aug. 1, 2007).unpublished
    Ingraham v. U. of Me. at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982) (citations omitted).
  • Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, No. CUMre-07-077 (Me. Super. Ct June 29, 2007).unpublished
    “( 1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting the injunctive relief would inflict on the defendant, (3) that plaintiff has ex…”
  • Maine Civil Liberties Union v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 121, 734 A.2d 191.published
  • Walsh v. Johnston, 608 A.2d 776 (Me. 1992).published
  • Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 2003 ME 140, 837 A.2d 129.published
  • Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Emerson, 563 A.2d 762 (Me. 1989).published
  • Pearl Investments, LLC v. Stand. i/o, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Me. 2004).published
  • Crafts v. Quinn, 482 A.2d 825 (Me. 1984).published
  • Moshe Myerowitz, D.C., P.A. v. Howard, 507 A.2d 578 (Me. 1986).published
  • Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, 2005 ME 97, 879 A.2d 21.published
  • Bangor Baptist Church v. State of Me., 576 F. Supp. 1299 (D. Me. 1983).published
  • Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Everett, 600 A.2d 398 (Me. 1991).published
  • Facilitators Improving Salmonid Habitat v. Towns of Winterport & Frankfort, 2003 ME 33, 819 A.2d 325.published
  • Katahdin Ins. Grp. v. Elwell, No. YORcv-00-198, 2001 WL 1736572 (Me. Super. Ct July 9, 2001).unpublished
  • President & Trs. of Bates Coll. v. Congregation Beth Abraham, No. ANDcv-01-21 (Me. Super. Ct Feb. 13, 2001).unpublished
  • Lyons v. Hotch, No. KNOre-00-018 (Me. Super. Ct Dec. 16, 2002).unpublished
  • Erhart v. Grindle, No. HANre-02-23 (Me. Super. Ct Aug. 26, 2002).unpublished
  • Morton v. Maine Dep't of Educ., No. CUMcv-04-375 (Me. Super. Ct Nov. 16, 2004).unpublished
  • Town of Old Orchard Beach v. Cook, No. YORcv-04-206 (Me. Super. Ct Aug. 20, 2004).unpublished
  • Downeast Mortg. Corp. v. Balzano, No. CUMcv-04-411 (Me. Super. Ct June 29, 2004).unpublished
  • Riley Ins. Agency v. Champoux Ins. Agency, No. CUMcv-05-691 (Me. Super. Ct Dec. 1, 2005).unpublished
  • Portland Water Dist. v. Inhabitants of the Town of Standish, No. CUMcv-04-363, 2005 Me. Super. LEXIS 154 (Me. Super. Ct Nov. 14, 2005).unpublished
  • Celli v. Friend Fort Knox, No. PENcv-05-274 (Me. Super. Ct Oct. 29, 2005).unpublished
  • Breton v. Stanton, No. CUMcv-06-536 (Me. Super. Ct June 29, 2007).unpublished
  • Surgical Sys., Inc. v. Niles, No. CUMcv-11-0302 (Me. Super. Ct Sept. 14, 2011).unpublished
  • Planned Parenthood v. State of Idaho, 532 P.3d 801 (Idaho 2022).published
  • Portland Pie, LLC v. Cotton Street Dev., LLC, No. CUMcv-07-198 (Me. Super. Ct June 12, 2007).unpublished
  • Xwave New England Corp. v. Ziegenfus, No. CUMcv-07-15 (Me. Super. Ct May 18, 2007).unpublished
  • Matteson v. Batchelder, No. PENcv-08-65 (Me. Super. Ct July 1, 2008).unpublished
  • Portland Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Portland, No. CUMcv-09-401 (Me. Super. Ct July 10, 2009).unpublished
At page 692 cited at this page1 citing case
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Christopher INGRAHAM
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE AT ORONO, Paul Silverman, President, and David Cox, Penobscot County District Attorney
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Feb 23, 1982.
Published opinion
441 A.2d 691
1982 Me. LEXIS 613
Robert Christopher Ingraham, pro se., John M. R. Paterson (orally), Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Portland, for University of Maine at Orono., Gary F. Thorne, Mitchell & Stearns, Bangor, for David Cox, Dist. Atty.
McKusick, Roberts, Carter, Violette, Wathen.
Cited by 100 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Robert Christopher Ingra-ham, takes this appeal from an order of the Superior Court, Penobscot County dismissing his complaint against the defendant, David Cox. [1] Defendant Cox’s motion to dismiss was predicated primarily on the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

We note at the outset that we have no jurisdiction over the dismissal of the complaint against University of Maine at Orono and Silverman because the only notice of appeal filed in this case was filed after the dismissal of the complaint as to Cox and before the complaint against University of Maine at Orono and Silverman was actually dismissed. M.R.Civ.P. 73 requires that an appeal be taken from a judgment of the Superior Court. Because the case against University of Maine at Orono and Silverman had not been dismissed, there was no judgment from which to appeal. Moreover, no notice of appeal was ever filed after the dismissal as to University of Maine at Orono and Silverman and judgment on that dismissal was docketed in the Superior Court.

Plaintiff also seeks from this Court in-junctive relief to prevent certain individuals from harassing him. [2] We affirm the judgment of dismissal and deny the injunctive relief.

A careful reading of the complaint indicates that it fails to state a cause of action against defendant Cox and was therefore properly dismissed. The complaint alleges only that Cox’s part in the ‘UMO conspiracy’ to harass the plaintiff was the prosecution of numerous criminal trespassing charges. The record before us establishes that the criminal trespass charges apparently arose initially after the plaintiff ignored a June 1980 order by the Acting President of University of Maine at Orono, excluding the plaintiff from the Or-ono campus of the University of Maine. The plaintiff does not allege in his complaint that defendant Cox took any action outside the course of the normal prosecution of criminal charges. A district attorney, as a prosecuting officer of the State, enjoys absolute immunity from suit, including suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when acting within the scope of his official duty. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-424, 96 S.Ct. 984, 991-992, 47 L.Ed.2d 128, 138-40 (1976). The complaint against Cox was properly dismissed.

The plaintiff seeks the following injunc-tive relief from this Court:

(1) reversal and recission of his convictions for criminal trespass,
[*693] (2) reinstatement of the plaintiff as a student at University of Maine at Or-ono and requiring University of Maine at Orono to give plaintiff a job,
(3) issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from denying admission, employment and due process, and other conduct intended to harass the plaintiff.

Before granting a preliminary or permanent injunction, the Court must find that four criteria are met:

(1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted,
(2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting the injunctive relief would inflict on the defendant,
(3) that plaintiff has exhibited a likelihood of success on the merits (at most, a probability; at least, a substantial possibility),
(4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by granting the injunction.

Women’s Community Health Ctr. v. Cohen, 477 F.Supp. 542, 544 (D.Me.1979); UV Indus. Inc. v. Posner, 466 F.Supp. 1251, 1255 (D.Me.1979). An injunction is not the proper avenue of relief for reversal of criminal convictions; his sole remedy is at law by either direct appeal or post-conviction review. [3] Further, the plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proving that the four above criteria have been met with respect to the other injunctive relief sought. At the very least, plaintiff has not carried his burden of proving a likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, plaintiff’s motion does not indicate that he will suffer irreparable injury. The motion and attached affidavits merely indicate that the plaintiff’s alleged continued violation of his special condition of probation — that he not enter the University of Maine at Orono campus (after convictions for criminal trespass)— will result in his being arrested while on campus and physically removed therefrom. We must therefore deny the injunctive relief sought.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Motion for injunctive relief denied.

All concurring.

1

. The record before this Court indicates that at the time the plaintiff filed his notice of appeal to the Law Court there was no final judgment pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 54(b) because plaintiffs claim against the University of Maine at Orono and Silverman was still pending. Nevertheless, because this is a pro se case and because the complaint against University of Maine at Orono and Silverman was later dismissed, we reach the merits of the Cox dismissal.

2

. M.R.Civ.P. 62(g) provides us with the jurisdiction over plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief.

3

. We note a procedural irregularity in the plaintiff’s conviction on December 9, 1981 of criminal trespassing, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 402, a Class E crime. Ingraham was sentenced to six months in jail; sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a year and a half. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1202(1) provides that probation for a Class E crime cannot exceed one year. Ingraham’s proper avenue of relief in this instance is to seek post-conviction review.