28 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beegan v. Schmidtgreen2 sentences2008The transactional test is a "pragmatic" test, "requiring that the court analyze the factual groupings that can be aggregated for trial." Id. (quoting Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644-45 (Me. 1982)). 2000The transactional test is a “pragmatic” test, “requiring that the court analyze the factual groupings that can be aggregated for trial.” Id. (quoting Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644 (Me.1982)). [¶ 13] The 1995 and 1997 actions cannot be viewed as arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts. | 4 | 5 |
Draus v. Town of Houltongreen2 sentences2005The doctrine prevents a party from relitigating “issues that were tried, or that may have been tried, between the same parties or their privies in an earlier suit on the same cause of action.” Blance v. Alley, 1997 ME 125, ¶ 4 , 697 A.2d 828, 829 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). [¶ 18] In determining whether a claim is precluded, we apply a transactional test, examining the “aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial” to determine “if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, 2005The doctrine prevents a party from relitigating “issues that were tried, or that may have been tried, between the same parties or their privies in an earlier suit on the same cause of action.” Blance v. Alley, 1997 ME 125, ¶ 4 , 697 A.2d 828, 829 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). [¶ 18] In determining whether a claim is precluded, we apply a transactional test, examining the “aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial” to determine “if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, | 3 | 3 |
Portland Water District v. Town of Standishgreen2 sentences2021Matters Presented Were or Could Have Been Litigated in Prior Action To determine whether a claim is barred, courts use a transactional test, "examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong." Portland Water Dist. v. Town ofStandish, 2008 ME 23 , 1 8, 940 A.2d 1097 (quoting Norton v. Town of Long Island, 2005 ME 109 , 1 17, 883 A.2d 889, 895 ; determining that cl 2021Matters Presented Were or Could Have Been Litigated in Prior Action To determine whether a claim is barred, courts use a transactional test, "examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong." Portland Water Dist. v. Town ofStandish, 2008 ME 23 , 1 8, 940 A.2d 1097 (quoting Norton v. Town of Long Island, 2005 ME 109 , 1 17, 883 A.2d 889, 895 ; determining that cl | 2 | 6 |
Norton v. Town of Long Islandgreen2 sentences2021Matters Presented Were or Could Have Been Litigated in Prior Action To determine whether a claim is barred, courts use a transactional test, "examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong." Portland Water Dist. v. Town ofStandish, 2008 ME 23 , 1 8, 940 A.2d 1097 (quoting Norton v. Town of Long Island, 2005 ME 109 , 1 17, 883 A.2d 889, 895 ; determining that cl 2021Matters Presented Were or Could Have Been Litigated in Prior Action To determine whether a claim is barred, courts use a transactional test, "examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong." Portland Water Dist. v. Town ofStandish, 2008 ME 23 , 1 8, 940 A.2d 1097 (quoting Norton v. Town of Long Island, 2005 ME 109 , 1 17, 883 A.2d 889, 895 ; determining that cl | 2 | 4 |
Brown v. Osiergreen2 sentences2008The transactional test is a "pragmatic" test, "requiring that the court analyze the factual groupings that can be aggregated for trial." Id. (quoting Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644-45 (Me. 1982)). 2000Pursuant to the transactional test, causes of action are deemed to be the same if they were “founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Goumas, 2000 ME 79, ¶ 7 , 750 A.2d at 565 (quoting Brown v. Osier, 628 A.2d 125, 127 (Me.1993)). | 2 | 3 |
Carol Cutting v. Down East Orthopedic Associates, P.A.green2 sentences2023See Cutting, 2021 ME 1, ¶ 10 , 244 A.3d 226 ; see also 46 Am. 2023See Cutting, 2021 ME 1, ¶ 10 , 244 A.3d 226 ; see also 46 Am. | 1 | 1 |
Sebra v. Wentworthgreen2 sentences2021In analyzing the cause of action, “we apply a transactional test, examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Sebra, 2010 ME 21, ¶ 12 , 990 A.2d 538 (quotation marks omitted). [¶18] Complicating this matter is the phrasing of the pertinent documents. 2021In analyzing the cause of action, “we apply a transactional test, examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Sebra, 2010 ME 21, ¶ 12 , 990 A.2d 538 (quotation marks omitted). [¶18] Complicating this matter is the phrasing of the pertinent documents. | 1 | 1 |
Penkul v. Matarazzogreen2 sentences2010Penkul v. Matarazzo, 2009 ME 113, ¶ 7 , 983 A.2d 375, 377 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 12] To determine whether a claim is precluded, we apply a transactional test, “examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 2008 ME 23, ¶ 8 , 940 A.2d 1097, 1100 (quotation marks omitted). 2010Penkul v. Matarazzo, 2009 ME 113, ¶ 7 , 983 A.2d 375, 377 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 12] To determine whether a claim is precluded, we apply a transactional test, “examining the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 2008 ME 23, ¶ 8 , 940 A.2d 1097, 1100 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Petit v. Key Bancshares of Maine, Inc.green1 sentence2005In such circumstances, the newly pleaded claim is precluded even if the latest suit “ ‘relies on a legal theory not advanced in the first case, seeks different relief than that sought in the first case, or involves evidence different from the evidence relevant to the first case.’” Blance, 1997 ME 125, ¶ 4 , 697 A.2d at 829 (quoting Petit v. Key Bancshares of Me., Inc., 635 A.2d 956, 959 (Me.1993)); see also Hardman v. Border Trust Co., 2004 ME 28, ¶ 5 , 842 A.2d 1266, 1267 . | 1 | 1 |
Blance v. Alleygreen2 sentences2005The doctrine prevents a party from relitigating “issues that were tried, or that may have been tried, between the same parties or their privies in an earlier suit on the same cause of action.” Blance v. Alley, 1997 ME 125, ¶ 4 , 697 A.2d 828, 829 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). [¶ 18] In determining whether a claim is precluded, we apply a transactional test, examining the “aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial” to determine “if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, 2005The doctrine prevents a party from relitigating “issues that were tried, or that may have been tried, between the same parties or their privies in an earlier suit on the same cause of action.” Blance v. Alley, 1997 ME 125, ¶ 4 , 697 A.2d 828, 829 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). [¶ 18] In determining whether a claim is precluded, we apply a transactional test, examining the “aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial” to determine “if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, | 1 | 1 |
Harriman v. Border Trust Co.green2 sentences2005In such circumstances, the newly pleaded claim is precluded even if the latest suit “ ‘relies on a legal theory not advanced in the first case, seeks different relief than that sought in the first case, or involves evidence different from the evidence relevant to the first case.’” Blance, 1997 ME 125, ¶ 4 , 697 A.2d at 829 (quoting Petit v. Key Bancshares of Me., Inc., 635 A.2d 956, 959 (Me.1993)); see also Hardman v. Border Trust Co., 2004 ME 28, ¶ 5 , 842 A.2d 1266, 1267 . 2005In such circumstances, the newly pleaded claim is precluded even if the latest suit “ ‘relies on a legal theory not advanced in the first case, seeks different relief than that sought in the first case, or involves evidence different from the evidence relevant to the first case.’” Blance, 1997 ME 125, ¶ 4 , 697 A.2d at 829 (quoting Petit v. Key Bancshares of Me., Inc., 635 A.2d 956, 959 (Me.1993)); see also Hardman v. Border Trust Co., 2004 ME 28, ¶ 5 , 842 A.2d 1266, 1267 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Samson Constr. Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Johnson, 1997 ME 220, ¶¶ 2-4 , 704 A.2d 866 . 2024Johnson, 1997 ME 220, ¶¶ 2-4 , 704 A.2d 866 . | 5 | 2007–2024 |
Wilmington Trust Company v. Karen Anne Sullivan-Thorne
green
2 sentences2024“We define a cause of action through a transactional test, which examines the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Id. (alteration, citation, and quotation marks omitted). 14 a second foreclosure action in which the lender sought the same relief as it had in the first action. 2021Co., 2013 ME 94, ¶ 7 , 81 A.3d 371 ; Saunders, 2006 ME 94, ¶ 8 , 902 A.2d 830 . [¶21] The District Court’s analysis painted with too broad a brush in considering the similarity of the claims in the two actions when it determined that the transactional test was met because (1) both cases were commercial FED actions, (2) both involved the same property and lease, (3) both sought eviction for defaults under the lease, and (4) the Section 3 issue was “related in time, space, origin, and motivation” to the other previously alleged defaults. | 4 | 2016–2024 |
Heidi Pushard v. Bank of America N.A.
green
2 sentences2023The third element is subject to a transactional test, where the court "examines the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong." Pushard v. Bank ofAmerica, 2017 ME 230 , ~ 21, 175 A.3d 103 (quotation omitted). 2023The third element is subject to a transactional test, where the court "examines the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial to determine if they were founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong." Pushard v. Bank ofAmerica, 2017 ME 230 , ~ 21, 175 A.3d 103 (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Camps Newfound/Owatonna Corp. v. Town of Harrison
green
2 sentences2004Maine applies a transactional test to “determine whether the matters presented for decision in the instant action were or might have been litigated in the prior action.” Id. 1999Maine uses a transactional test of whether the same cause of action is presented in two separate proceedings: "The measure of a cause of action is the aggregate of connected operative facts that can-be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial.” Camps Newfound/Owatonna Corp. v. Town of Harrison, 1998 ME 20, ¶ 11 , 705 A.2d 1109, 1113 . | 2 | 1999–2004 |
Keybank National Ass'n v. Sargent
green
2 sentences2021Co. v. Sullivan-Thorne, 2013 ME 94, 18 , 81 A.3d 371 (quoting KeyBank Nat'/ Ass'n v. Sargent, 2000 ME 153,117 , 758 A.2d 528 .) The claim may still be precluded even if the second action "relies 9 Thames Street argues that Ocean State's attachment of pleadings and affidavits from the 2018 FED Action is evidence that the current pursuit for attorney fees is a "second bite at the apple." The Court disagrees. 2021Co. v. Sullivan-Thorne, 2013 ME 94, 18 , 81 A.3d 371 (quoting KeyBank Nat'/ Ass'n v. Sargent, 2000 ME 153,117 , 758 A.2d 528 .) The claim may still be precluded even if the second action "relies 9 Thames Street argues that Ocean State's attachment of pleadings and affidavits from the 2018 FED Action is evidence that the current pursuit for attorney fees is a "second bite at the apple." The Court disagrees. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Saunders v. Tisher
green
2 sentences2021Co., 2013 ME 94, ¶ 7 , 81 A.3d 371 ; Saunders, 2006 ME 94, ¶ 8 , 902 A.2d 830 . [¶21] The District Court’s analysis painted with too broad a brush in considering the similarity of the claims in the two actions when it determined that the transactional test was met because (1) both cases were commercial FED actions, (2) both involved the same property and lease, (3) both sought eviction for defaults under the lease, and (4) the Section 3 issue was “related in time, space, origin, and motivation” to the other previously alleged defaults. 2021Co., 2013 ME 94, ¶ 7 , 81 A.3d 371 ; Saunders, 2006 ME 94, ¶ 8 , 902 A.2d 830 . [¶21] The District Court’s analysis painted with too broad a brush in considering the similarity of the claims in the two actions when it determined that the transactional test was met because (1) both cases were commercial FED actions, (2) both involved the same property and lease, (3) both sought eviction for defaults under the lease, and (4) the Section 3 issue was “related in time, space, origin, and motivation” to the other previously alleged defaults. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Town of Blue Hill v. Leighton
green
2 sentences2021Given their summary nature, see Town of Blue Hill, 2011 ME 103, ¶ 8 , 30 A.3d 848 , many FED cases would be subject to dismissal on claim preclusion grounds if we were to conclude that similarity at this level of generality was sufficient to meet the transactional test. 2021Given their summary nature, see Town of Blue Hill, 2011 ME 103, ¶ 8 , 30 A.3d 848 , many FED cases would be subject to dismissal on claim preclusion grounds if we were to conclude that similarity at this level of generality was sufficient to meet the transactional test. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Thibeault v. Brackett
green
1 sentence2020Thibeault v. Brackett, 2007 ME 154 ,r 7, quoting Johnson v. Samson Construction Corp., 1997 ME 220 ,r 6, 704 A2d 866 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Conrad v. Swan
green
1 sentence2014Portland Water Dist. v. Town if Standish, 2008 ME 2 .3, ~ 8, 940 A.2d 1097 (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Goumas v. State Tax Assessor
green
2 sentences2000Pursuant to the transactional test, causes of action are deemed to be the same if they were “founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Goumas, 2000 ME 79, ¶ 7 , 750 A.2d at 565 (quoting Brown v. Osier, 628 A.2d 125, 127 (Me.1993)). 2000Pursuant to the transactional test, causes of action are deemed to be the same if they were “founded upon the same transaction, arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts, and sought redress for essentially the same basic wrong.” Goumas, 2000 ME 79, ¶ 7 , 750 A.2d at 565 (quoting Brown v. Osier, 628 A.2d 125, 127 (Me.1993)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kradoska v. Kipp
green
1 sentence1982Kradoska, 397 A.2d at 568 , approved the definition of “cause of action” used by Professor Field and his collaborators: “The measure of a cause of action is the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial.” 1 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 18.1, at 360 (2d ed. 1970); see also Field & McKusick, Maine Civil Practice § 18.1, at 218 (1st ed. 1959). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.