Cluster 2079247

Id. (citing Robinson v. Washington County, 529 A.2d 1357, 1361 (Me. 1987); MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me. 1982); see also Sargent v. Sargent, 622 A.2d 721, 723 (Me. 1993) ("A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is appropriate to raise the affirmative defense of res judicata only if the facts establishing the defense appear on the face of the complaint.").

Id. at 176 , 38 A. at 99 . [¶31] Later opinions addressing the elements of a claim for tortious interference with a contract or advantageous relationship include: Currie v. Industrial Security, Inc., 2007 ME 12, ¶¶ 31-34 , 915 A.2d 400 ; Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 98, ¶¶ 13-15 , 798 A.2d 1104 ; James v. MacDonald, 1998 ME 148, ¶¶ 6-7 , 712 A.2d 1054 ; Petit v. Key Bank of Me., 688 A.2d 427, 430 (Me. 1996); Barnes v. Zappia, 658 A.2d 1086, 1090 (Me. 1995); Pombriant v. Blue C…

Because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Harris, 1999 ME 38, ¶ 15 , 725 A.2d 1018, 1023 , a complaint will not be dismissed, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), as time-barred “unless the complaint contains within its four corners allegations of sufficient facts to show the existence and applicability of the defense,” Ripley v. Mercier, 482 A.2d 850, 851 (Me.1984) (quoting MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982)) (inte…

In Maine, “[interference with an advantageous relationship requires the existence of a valid contract or prospective economic advantage, interference with that contract or advantage through fraud or intimidation, and damages proximately caused by the interference.” Barnes v. Zappia, 658 A.2d 1086, 1090 (Me.1995); see also DiPietro v. Casco N. Bank, 490 A.2d 215, 219 (Me.1985); MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982); Harmon v. Harmon, 404 A.2d 1020, 1025 (Me.1979).

Giacomantonio has failed to satisfy his burden of proving that his allegedly tortious activity constituted the performance of or failure to perform a "discretionary function or duty." 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1)(C); cf. MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982) ("It is not discernible from the complaint whether the actions alleged were functions or duties of Officer Madura and[,] if they were, whether they were discretionary.

The court dismissed the complaint based on governmental and prosecutorial immunity. 2 Governmental immunity, however, is an affirmative defense and cannot be invoked as a ground for dismissal of a complaint “unless the complaint contains within its four comers allegations of sufficient facts to show the existence and applicability of the immunity.” MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982).

Pombriant v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maine, 562 A.2d 656, 659 (Me. 1989); MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982).

The Maine Law Court has defined the alleged tort as follows: “The law in Maine provides relief in damages, ‘wherever a person, by means of fraud or intimidation, procures, either the breach of a contract or the discharge of a plaintiff, from an employment, which but for such wrongful interference would have continued.’ ” MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982); Nelson v. Times, 373 A.2d 1221, 1223-25 (Me.1977); Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, M.D., 365 A.2d 792, 795 (Me.1976).

Maine has long recognized the intentional tort of interference with an economic relationship which is described as follows: “ ‘[Wjherever a person, by means of fraud or intimidation, procures, either the breach of a contract or the discharge of a plaintiff, from an employment, which but for such wrongful interference would have continued.’ ” MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A. 2d 680, 683 (Me.1982) (quoting Perkins v. Pendleton, 90 Me. 166, 176 , 38 A. 96 (1897)).

See Pombriant v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maine, 562 A.2d 656, 659 (Me.1989); MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982).

(BNA) 1384, 1386 (C.D.Cal.1982) (U.S. District Court); accord, Rogers v. IBM Corp., 500 F.Supp. 867, 870 (W.D.Pa. 1980); MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982); see also Munley v. ISC Financial House, Inc., 584 P.2d 1336, 1338-40 (Okla.1978). 8 Similarly, it is hardly persuasive to argue that appellant’s seclusion is somehow intruded upon by a person’s consultation of public records concerning him.

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982).

Robinson v. Washington County, 529 A.2d at 1361 ; McKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982).

Id. at 99 ; MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 681-82 (Me.1982).

Id. at 99 ; MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 681-82 (Me.1982).

In Maine, that tort is committed “wherever a person, by means of fraud or intimidation procures, either the breach of a contract or the discharge of a plaintiff, from an employment, which but for such wrongful interference would have continued.” MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982) (emphasis added), on appeal from remand, 474 A.2d 166 (Me.1984).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982) (improper to dismiss complaint when it is not discernible “whether the actions alleged were functions or duties of [the employee] and if they were, whether they were discretionary”).

Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97, 99 (Me.1984); MacKerron v. *267 Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 681-682 (Me.1982).

See DiPietro v. Casco Northern Bank, 490 A.2d 215, 219 (Me.1985); MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 681-682 (Me.1982).

MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 682 (Me.1982).

See MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me. 1982) (threats constituted intimidation).

See MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me. 1982) (citing Perkins v. Pendleton, 90 Me. 166, 176 , 38 A.96, 99 ( 1897).

See MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982) (“This Court has long recognized interference with an existing employment or contract relationship as an actionable tort.” (emphasis added)); Barnes v. Zappia, 658 A.2d 1086, 1090 (Me.1995) (substituting the “existing employment” language of MacKerron for the more general “prospective economic advantage”). 2.

See Barnes v. Zappia, 658 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me. 1995), citing MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982) (“[T]he principles of the law of interference ... are equally applicable in [the attorney-client] situation as in other employment or contract situations.” (emphasis added)).

See MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982) (cause of action for interference with an existing employment or contract relationship); Cyr v. Cote, 396 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Me.1979) (cause of action for wrongful interference with an expected legacy or gift under a will).

The Court has found no authority, nor has [appellant] cited any, which suggests the contrary.'" ( Wolf v. Regardie (D.C.1989) 553 A.2d 1213, 1218 ; see also MacKerron v. Madura (Me.1982) 445 A.2d 680, 682 [police officer's attempt to obtain letter from attorney's client may implicate the privacy interests of the client, but not the attorney].) The majority cites Sheets v. Salt Lake County (10th Cir.1995) 45 F.3d 1383 ( Sheets ), in support of its proposed expansion *828 of t…

To prove a claim of tortious interference, Plaintiffs must show that Defendant, “ ‘by fraud or intimidation, procur[ed] the breach of a contract that would have continued but for such wrongful interference.’ ” June Roberts Agency, Inc. v. Venture Properties, Inc., 676 A.2d 46, 50 (Me.1996) (quoting Grover v. Minette-Mills, Inc., 638 A.2d 712, 716 (Me. 1994); see also MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982)).

See also MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680, 683 (Me.1982); Sawyer v. Bailey, 413 A.2d 165, 168 (Me.1980). 23 .