29 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
McAfee v. Colegreen2 sentences2013The Court should dismiss a claim only "when it appears 'beyond doubt that [the] plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that [it] might prove in support of [its] claims."' McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994) (quoting Hall v. Ed. of Envtl. 2013The Court should dismiss a claim only "when it appears 'beyond doubt that [the] plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that [it] might prove in support of [its] claims."' McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994) (quoting Hall v. Bd. ofEnvtl. | 14 | 14 |
Hall v. Board of Environmental Protectiongreen2 sentences2013Prot., 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me. 1985) ). 2013Prot., 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me. 1985)). | 12 | 12 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johanson v. Dunnington
green
2 sentences2012The court should dismiss a claim only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the [non-moving party] is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he I [or she] might prove in support of his [or her] claim." !d. (quoting Johanson v. !I I Dumdngton, 2001 ME 169 , ~ 5, 785 A.2d 1244•, 12'1·6). 2012The court should dismiss a claim only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the [non-moving party] is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he I [or she] might prove in support of his [or her] claim." !d. (quoting Johanson v. !I I Dumdngton, 2001 ME 169 , ~ 5, 785 A.2d 1244•, 12'1·6). | 14 | 2007–2012 |
Saunders v. Tisher
green
2 sentences2010The court should dismiss a claim only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he lor she] might prove in support of his lor her] claim." Id. (quotingJohanson v. Dunnington, 2001 ME 169 , ~ 5, 785 A.2d 1244, 1246 ). 2010The court should dismiss a claim only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he [or 3 she] might prove in support of his [or her] claim." Id. (quoting Johanson v. Dunnington, 2001 ME 169 , <JI 5, 785 A.2d 1244, 1246 ). | 8 | 2009–2023 |
Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Commission
green
1 sentence2010The court should dismiss a claim only "when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he [or she] might prove in support of his [or her] claim." Id. (quoting Johanson v. Dunnington, 2001 ME 169 , c:rr 5, 785 A.2d 1244, 1246 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.