Heber v. Lucerne-In-Maine Village Corp. (2000)
green
· 151 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 33 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200120132026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Town and Country Leasing v. Dubois (2010)
"A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137, 9 [ 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Fleet National Bank v. Liberty (2004)
Corp., 2000 ME 137 , ¶ 14 n. 6, 755 A.2d 1064, 1068 (quoting Blair v. State Tax Assessor, 485 A.2d 957, 959 (Me. 1984)).
green
Friends of Lamoine v. Town of Lamoine (2019)
Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137, ¶ 8, 10 , 755 A.2d 1064 (“When a complaint is filed after a change in the law, but states a cause of action that accrued before the change, we look to common law principles to determine whether the new or old law applies.
green
Savage v. Maine Pretrial Svs. (2012)
DISCUSSION "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , CjJ: 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting 2 McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994)).
green
McCue v. Greif (2011)
There is no indication that the plaintiff has been dilatory in filing this motion to amend, or that the amendment will unfairly prejudice the defendants. 2 The plaintiff's motion to enlarge by eight days the deadline for filing opposition to the motion to dismiss was granted by order dated March 1, 2011. 2 Motion to Dismiss "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , <IT 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (qu…
green
Stanley v. Spurwink Svs., Inc. (2011)
DISCUSSION "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heher v. Lllccrne-ill-Mn;lIc VilLnge Corp., 2000 ME 137 , 9f 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfec v. Cole, tS37 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994)).
green
State of Maine v. Klein (2011)
DISCUSSION On a motion to dismiss, the court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Heber v. LlIceme-ill-Maille Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , lj[ 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Calf, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)).
green
New England Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Masciadri (2011)
DISCUSSION "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. LlICeme-i/1-Mai71C Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , <IT 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Pascoe v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2010)
Lucerue-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , err 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Haskell v. Hastings (2010)
DISCUSSION On a motion to dismiss, the court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , <j[ 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport (2010)
"A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , <[ 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Malenko v. Campbell (2010)
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss II A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Luceme-i1l-Maille Village Corp., 2000 ME 137, 17 , 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Envtl. Power Corp. v. Livingston (2010)
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims II A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Lucerne-ill-Maille Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , <]I 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Steele v. Botticello (2009)
The Botticellos' Motion to Dismiss "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Luceme-i71-Mai71e Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , 'JI 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Davis v. Rodriguez (2009)
Corp., 2000 ME 137 , ~ 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting Hall v. Envtl.
green
Washington Mut. Bank v. Morin (2007)
DISCUSSION "A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , <JI 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)).
green
Doe v. District Attorney (2007)
Corp., 2000 ME 137, ¶ 7 , 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 (quotation marks omitted).
green
Sawyer v. The Legislative Council (2005)
See Heber, 2000 ME 137 , { 10, 755 A.2d at 1066 .
See, ~ Heber, 2000 ME 137 , 1 10, 755 A.2d at 1066 ; Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 639 A.2d 626,628 (Me. 1994) (distinguishing situations in which section 302 applies with situations in which the common law presumption applies). 9 The distinction between these concepts is often referred to as the distinction between substantive and procedural provisions.
green
Tibbetts v. St. Joseph Hosp. Inc. (2007)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 , ~ 7, 755 A,2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Lizotte v. Pierce (2006)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 ,y 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Environmental Exchange v. Casella Waste Systems (2005)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 ,g 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Stewart Title of N. New England v. Pike (2003)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137,97 , 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Larkin Enter., Inc. v. Manafort Bros., Inc. (2002)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 , {7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Kennedy v. Voorneveld (2002)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 , J 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Hinkley v. Penobscot Valley Hospital (2002)
See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103. [¶ 11] Hinkley cites to Heber, 2000 ME 137 , 755 A.2d 1064 and Clockedile v. State Dep’t of Trans., 437 A.2d 187 (Me.1981), for the proposition that when a statute expressly provides for a specific cause of action, a governmental entity may be sued in accordance with the terms of that statute.
green
Boylan v. Foster Carpenter Black & Co. (2002)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 , { 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Darling's Ford v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137, 7 , 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 , J 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in-Maine Village Co., 2000 ME 137 , 7 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .
green
Jimino v. Town of Yarmouth (2001)
See Heber v. Lucerne-in- Maine Village Corp., 2000 ME 137 , { 15, 755 A.2d 1064, 1068 ; Mueller_v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 538 A.2d 294, 297-98 (Me. 1988); see also Det.'s Mem. at 7 n.3.
green
Campbell v. City of South Portland (2014)
Compare section 27-301 with section 27-304. 5 If the effect of a variance for a nonconforming use is to place that use on an equal footing with conforming uses, see Sawyer, 2000 ME 137 <J[ 22, a variance for a nonconforming lot is entitled to the same effect.
green
Celli v. Friend Fort Knox (2005)
See also Heber v. Lucerne-in Maine Village Co., 2000 M E 137, 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066 .