5 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Augusta v. Allengreen1 sentence2015Allen, 438 A.2d 472, 475 (Me. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Webber Oil Co. v. Murraygreen1 sentence2011A SERVICE 1 The proposed amended complaint actually refers to section 1454( 1 )(B) at this point, but this appears to be a typographical error because that subsection seems inapposite. 5 STATION DEALER OR WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR MAY SELL ANY PRODUCTS LISTED IN THIS AGREEMENT FOR A PRICE WHICH HE ALONE MAY DECIDE." Mapes acknowledges that it is a "franchisor" and Lunny is or was a "franchisee," for purposes of the Act. 2 The Law Court in Webber Oil Company v. Murray, held that the Act in general applies to consignment arrangements such as that here. 551 A.2d 1371, 1373-74 (Me. 1988) (Hornby, J.). | 1 | 1 |
Walsh v. Cusackgreen2 sentences2010Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.Me.2005) (interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(5) (2009)). [4] We recognized an exception to this general rule with respect to post-judgment interest on certain child support arrearage claims, which were deemed to be a "unique area of the law." Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 9 , 946 A.2d 414, 417 . [5] See also Walsh, 2008 ME 74, ¶¶ 10-11 , 946 A.2d at 417-18 (holding that Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on child support arrearage, but vacating and remanding the arrearage judgment because the judgment did not stat 2010Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.Me.2005) (interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(5) (2009)). [4] We recognized an exception to this general rule with respect to post-judgment interest on certain child support arrearage claims, which were deemed to be a "unique area of the law." Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 9 , 946 A.2d 414, 417 . [5] See also Walsh, 2008 ME 74, ¶¶ 10-11 , 946 A.2d at 417-18 (holding that Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on child support arrearage, but vacating and remanding the arrearage judgment because the judgment did not stat | 1 | 1 |
Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc.green1 sentence2010Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.Me.2005) (interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(5) (2009)). [4] We recognized an exception to this general rule with respect to post-judgment interest on certain child support arrearage claims, which were deemed to be a "unique area of the law." Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 9 , 946 A.2d 414, 417 . [5] See also Walsh, 2008 ME 74, ¶¶ 10-11 , 946 A.2d at 417-18 (holding that Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on child support arrearage, but vacating and remanding the arrearage judgment because the judgment did not stat | 1 | 1 |
Raymond v. Raymondgreen1 sentence2010Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.Me.2005) (interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(5) (2009)). [4] We recognized an exception to this general rule with respect to post-judgment interest on certain child support arrearage claims, which were deemed to be a "unique area of the law." Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 9 , 946 A.2d 414, 417 . [5] See also Walsh, 2008 ME 74, ¶¶ 10-11 , 946 A.2d at 417-18 (holding that Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on child support arrearage, but vacating and remanding the arrearage judgment because the judgment did not stat | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Allengreen1 sentence2010Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.Me.2005) (interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(5) (2009)). [4] We recognized an exception to this general rule with respect to post-judgment interest on certain child support arrearage claims, which were deemed to be a "unique area of the law." Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 9 , 946 A.2d 414, 417 . [5] See also Walsh, 2008 ME 74, ¶¶ 10-11 , 946 A.2d at 417-18 (holding that Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on child support arrearage, but vacating and remanding the arrearage judgment because the judgment did not stat | 1 | 1 |
Tarbuck v. Jaeckelgreen2 sentences2010Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.Me.2005) (interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(5) (2009)). [4] We recognized an exception to this general rule with respect to post-judgment interest on certain child support arrearage claims, which were deemed to be a "unique area of the law." Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 9 , 946 A.2d 414, 417 . [5] See also Walsh, 2008 ME 74, ¶¶ 10-11 , 946 A.2d at 417-18 (holding that Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on child support arrearage, but vacating and remanding the arrearage judgment because the judgment did not stat 2010Uncle Henry's, Inc. v. Plaut Consulting, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 150, 154 (D.Me.2005) (interpreting 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(5) (2009)). [4] We recognized an exception to this general rule with respect to post-judgment interest on certain child support arrearage claims, which were deemed to be a "unique area of the law." Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 9 , 946 A.2d 414, 417 . [5] See also Walsh, 2008 ME 74, ¶¶ 10-11 , 946 A.2d at 417-18 (holding that Walsh was entitled to post-judgment interest on child support arrearage, but vacating and remanding the arrearage judgment because the judgment did not stat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of John R. Barron v. Shapiro & Morley, LLC
green
1 sentence2020The Law Court in the relatively recent case, Estate ofBarron v. Shapiro & Morley, LLC, 2017 ME 51 , ~14, held as follows: 2 The actual Count refers to a mobile home, but the Court considers this to be a typographical error. 4 [t]he necessary elements to establish a claim for conversion are a showing that (1) the person claiming that his or her prope1iy was convetied has a propetiy interest in the property; (2) the person had the right to possession at the time of the alleged conversion; and (3) the pa1iy with the right to possession made a demand for its retutn that was denied by the holder. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Greenstreet v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 967 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.