Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shrader-Miller v. Millergreen2 sentences2006See also Shrader-Miller v. Miller, where we upheld the award of treble damages pursuant to section 7552 and punitive damages for common law trespass, noting that each measure of relief was awarded for separate damage. 2004 ME 117, ¶¶ 25-26 , 855 A.2d 1139, 1146 . 2006See also Shrader-Miller v. Miller, where we upheld the award of treble damages pursuant to section 7552 and punitive damages for common law trespass, noting that each measure of relief was awarded for separate damage. 2004 ME 117, ¶¶ 25-26 , 855 A.2d 1139, 1146 . | 2 | 3 |
Bray v. Grindlegreen2 sentences2020Violation of the law is referred to as a “timber trespass.” See Bray v. Grindle, 2002 ME 130, ¶ 11 , 802 A.2d 1004 (“Pursuant to the timber trespass statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552…”); Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 ME 34, ¶ 3 , 896 A.2d 923 (“statutory timber trespass damages pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 7552 and 7552-A…”). 2020Violation of the law is referred to as a “timber trespass.” See Bray v. Grindle, 2002 ME 130, ¶ 11 , 802 A.2d 1004 (“Pursuant to the timber trespass statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552…”); Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 ME 34, ¶ 3 , 896 A.2d 923 (“statutory timber trespass damages pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 7552 and 7552-A…”). | 1 | 1 |
Dionne v. LeClercgreen2 sentences2020Violation of the law is referred to as a “timber trespass.” See Bray v. Grindle, 2002 ME 130, ¶ 11 , 802 A.2d 1004 (“Pursuant to the timber trespass statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552…”); Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 ME 34, ¶ 3 , 896 A.2d 923 (“statutory timber trespass damages pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 7552 and 7552-A…”). 2020Violation of the law is referred to as a “timber trespass.” See Bray v. Grindle, 2002 ME 130, ¶ 11 , 802 A.2d 1004 (“Pursuant to the timber trespass statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552…”); Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 ME 34, ¶ 3 , 896 A.2d 923 (“statutory timber trespass damages pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 7552 and 7552-A…”). | 1 | 1 |
Currier v. Hurongreen2 sentences2012See Currier v. Huron, 2008 ME 19 , ¶ 15 & n. 4, 940 A.2d 1085 . 2012See Currier v. Huron, 2008 ME 19 , ¶ 15 & n. 4, 940 A.2d 1085 . | 1 | 1 |
Dupuis v. Soucygreen2 sentences2012See Mehlhorn, 2006 ME 110 , ¶ 8 & n. 3, 905 A.2d 290 (noting that a damages award of $250 pursuant to section 7552(4)(A) implies that the section 7552(3) actual damages award “even when doubled, [is] less than $250”); see also Dupuis, 2011 ME 2, ¶¶ 13, 26 , 11 A.3d 318 (upholding a damages award of $12,900 pursuant to 7552(4)(B) based on $4300 actual damages multiplied by three for intentional or knowing conduct, where the relevant language of subsections (4)(A) and (4)(B) is identical). 2012See Mehlhorn, 2006 ME 110 , ¶ 8 & n. 3, 905 A.2d 290 (noting that a damages award of $250 pursuant to section 7552(4)(A) implies that the section 7552(3) actual damages award “even when doubled, [is] less than $250”); see also Dupuis, 2011 ME 2, ¶¶ 13, 26 , 11 A.3d 318 (upholding a damages award of $12,900 pursuant to 7552(4)(B) based on $4300 actual damages multiplied by three for intentional or knowing conduct, where the relevant language of subsections (4)(A) and (4)(B) is identical). | 1 | 1 |
Mehlhorn v. Derbygreen2 sentences2012See Mehlhorn, 2006 ME 110 , ¶ 8 & n. 3, 905 A.2d 290 (noting that a damages award of $250 pursuant to section 7552(4)(A) implies that the section 7552(3) actual damages award “even when doubled, [is] less than $250”); see also Dupuis, 2011 ME 2, ¶¶ 13, 26 , 11 A.3d 318 (upholding a damages award of $12,900 pursuant to 7552(4)(B) based on $4300 actual damages multiplied by three for intentional or knowing conduct, where the relevant language of subsections (4)(A) and (4)(B) is identical). 2012See Mehlhorn, 2006 ME 110 , ¶ 8 & n. 3, 905 A.2d 290 (noting that a damages award of $250 pursuant to section 7552(4)(A) implies that the section 7552(3) actual damages award “even when doubled, [is] less than $250”); see also Dupuis, 2011 ME 2, ¶¶ 13, 26 , 11 A.3d 318 (upholding a damages award of $12,900 pursuant to 7552(4)(B) based on $4300 actual damages multiplied by three for intentional or knowing conduct, where the relevant language of subsections (4)(A) and (4)(B) is identical). | 1 | 1 |
Stockly v. Doilgreen2 sentences2006She contends that our decisions in Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47 , 870 A.2d 1208 ; Morissette v. Somes, 2001 ME 152 , 782 A.2d 764 ; and Leavitt v. Continental Telephone Co. of Maine, 559 A.2d 786 (Me.1989), support her position that replacement and restoration costs are recoverable as an element of damages pursuant to section 7552. [¶ 7] These earlier cases are all distinguishable. 2006She contends that our decisions in Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47 , 870 A.2d 1208 ; Morissette v. Somes, 2001 ME 152 , 782 A.2d 764 ; and Leavitt v. Continental Telephone Co. of Maine, 559 A.2d 786 (Me.1989), support her position that replacement and restoration costs are recoverable as an element of damages pursuant to section 7552. [¶ 7] These earlier cases are all distinguishable. | 1 | 1 |
Morissette v. Somesgreen2 sentences2006She contends that our decisions in Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47 , 870 A.2d 1208 ; Morissette v. Somes, 2001 ME 152 , 782 A.2d 764 ; and Leavitt v. Continental Telephone Co. of Maine, 559 A.2d 786 (Me.1989), support her position that replacement and restoration costs are recoverable as an element of damages pursuant to section 7552. [¶ 7] These earlier cases are all distinguishable. 2006She contends that our decisions in Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47 , 870 A.2d 1208 ; Morissette v. Somes, 2001 ME 152 , 782 A.2d 764 ; and Leavitt v. Continental Telephone Co. of Maine, 559 A.2d 786 (Me.1989), support her position that replacement and restoration costs are recoverable as an element of damages pursuant to section 7552. [¶ 7] These earlier cases are all distinguishable. | 1 | 1 |
Ferris v. Haymoregreen2 sentences2006The federal odometer statute "imposes treble damage liability on ‘[a]ny person who, with intent to defraud, violates any requirement imposed under this subchapter.' ” Ferris v. Haymore, 967 F.2d 946, 955 (4th Cir.1992) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1989 (a)). 5 .It is difficult to conclude that the trial court made an implicit finding that the three defendants were not joint tortfeasors because the court also imposed the common law damages on the defendants jointly and severally. 6 . 2006The federal courts of appeals are divided on whether a federal statute with language similar to section 7552(4)(A) is intended to impose joint and several liability or individual and separate liability. 4 Compare Rice v. Gustavel, 891 F.2d 594 (6th Cir.1989), with Ferris v. Haymore, 967 F.2d 946 (4th Cir.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leavitt v. Continental Telephone Co. of Maine
green
2 sentences2006The language of section 7552 before its *852 revision did not enumerate the damages recoverable as it does in its current form; rather, it referred generally to “damages.” See 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552 (Supp.1994). [¶ 9] Finally, in Leavitt , we concluded that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence of the restoration costs for ornamental trees that were cut during a trespass. 559 A.2d at 787-88 . 2006She contends that our decisions in Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47 , 870 A.2d 1208 ; Morissette v. Somes, 2001 ME 152 , 782 A.2d 764 ; and Leavitt v. Continental Telephone Co. of Maine, 559 A.2d 786 (Me.1989), support her position that replacement and restoration costs are recoverable as an element of damages pursuant to section 7552. [¶ 7] These earlier cases are all distinguishable. | 2 | 2004–2006 |
Estate of Hoch v. Stifel
green
2 sentences2012Regeneration Damages Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 7552(3)(B) [¶ 9] We will disturb a damages award only “when there is no competent evidence in the record to support the award.” Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24, ¶43 , 16 A.3d 137 (quotation marks omitted). 2012Regeneration Damages Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 7552(3)(B) [¶ 9] We will disturb a damages award only “when there is no competent evidence in the record to support the award.” Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24, ¶43 , 16 A.3d 137 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lyle M. Rice v. Don E. Gustavel, Lee Wass
green
1 sentence2006The federal courts of appeals are divided on whether a federal statute with language similar to section 7552(4)(A) is intended to impose joint and several liability or individual and separate liability. 4 Compare Rice v. Gustavel, 891 F.2d 594 (6th Cir.1989), with Ferris v. Haymore, 967 F.2d 946 (4th Cir.1992). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.