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.
5 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bowden v. Grindlegreen1 sentence2024Second, while “there may be a relationship between” the value of the plaintiff’s work for purposes of quantum meruit and the value of the benefit conferred for purposes of unjust enrichment, “they are not necessarily the same.” Bowden v. Grindle, 651 A.2d 347, 351 (Me. 1994). [¶24] Applied here, these principles confirm that the jury verdict on Core’s claim for breach of express contract did not end the case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. LOI NGOgreen2 sentences2011P. 1(c) [¶ 7] Rule 1(c) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “When no procedure is specifically prescribed the court shall proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with the Constitution of *949 the United States or of the State of Maine, these rules or any applicable statutes.” [¶ 8] A core requirement for application of Rule 1(c) is that no other procedure be “specifically prescribed.” Here, another procedure is specifically prescribed because, as we have previously held, the post-conviction review process is “a single, unified system of post-conviction relief.” State v. Bl 2011P. 1(c) [¶ 7] Rule 1(c) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “When no procedure is specifically prescribed the court shall proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with the Constitution of *949 the United States or of the State of Maine, these rules or any applicable statutes.” [¶ 8] A core requirement for application of Rule 1(c) is that no other procedure be “specifically prescribed.” Here, another procedure is specifically prescribed because, as we have previously held, the post-conviction review process is “a single, unified system of post-conviction relief.” State v. Bl | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blakesleygreen2 sentences2011P. 1(c) [¶ 7] Rule 1(c) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “When no procedure is specifically prescribed the court shall proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with the Constitution of *949 the United States or of the State of Maine, these rules or any applicable statutes.” [¶ 8] A core requirement for application of Rule 1(c) is that no other procedure be “specifically prescribed.” Here, another procedure is specifically prescribed because, as we have previously held, the post-conviction review process is “a single, unified system of post-conviction relief.” State v. Bl 2011P. 1(c) [¶ 7] Rule 1(c) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “When no procedure is specifically prescribed the court shall proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with the Constitution of *949 the United States or of the State of Maine, these rules or any applicable statutes.” [¶ 8] A core requirement for application of Rule 1(c) is that no other procedure be “specifically prescribed.” Here, another procedure is specifically prescribed because, as we have previously held, the post-conviction review process is “a single, unified system of post-conviction relief.” State v. Bl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Town of Wells
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 181-89 . 2019Id. at 181-89 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Lamarre
green
1 sentence2018Id. [¶ 16] Our next opinion that offered a meaningful discussion of the notice requirement was State v. Lamarre , 553 A.2d 1260 (Me. 1989). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2018Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , 339 U.S. 306 , 314-15, 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) ). [¶ 15] Importantly for the present case, the core of the analysis in Kovtuschenko is the connection we drew between mailing and receipt: proof of mailing is material, not for its own sake, but because mailing to the licensee's last known address creates some expectation that the addressee received the mailed notice, although the State need not go so far as to prove actual receipt. 2018Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , 339 U.S. 306 , 314-15, 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) ). [¶ 15] Importantly for the present case, the core of the analysis in Kovtuschenko is the connection we drew between mailing and receipt: proof of mailing is material, not for its own sake, but because mailing to the licensee's last known address creates some expectation that the addressee received the mailed notice, although the State need not go so far as to prove actual receipt. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.