functional analysis in Maine

1996As we stated in Inhabitants of Sabattus v. Bilodeau, Me., 395 A.2d 123, 124 (1978): Who is the prevailing party is to be determined by a functional analysis, rather than a mechanical application of ... [the rule governing costs].

1980As we stated in Inhabitants of the Town of Sabattus v. Bilodeau, Me., 395 A.2d 123, 124 (1978): Who is the prevailing party is to be determined by a functional analysis, rather *975 than a mechanical application of . [the rule governing costs].

2007Id.; see also, Myrick, 436 A.2d at 383 (“a bill of attainder is penal in nature”). [¶ 36] The Maine Lemon Law is not a bill of attainder.

2007Id. ; see also, Myrick, 436 A.2d at 383 ("a bill of attainder is penal in nature"). [¶ 36] The Maine Lemon Law is not a bill of attainder.

2005When engaging the question of who is the prevailing party the court should utilize a functional analysis, looking to the facts of the "lawsuit as a whole to determine which party was the 'winner' and which the 'loser'." Landis v. Hannaford Brothers Co., 2000 NIB 111, <JI 6, 754 A.2d 958, 959 (quoting Dodge v. United Services Automobile Association, 417 A.2d 969, 975 (Me. 1980)).

2001To perform a functional analysis, the court “must look at the lawsuit as a whole to determine which party was the ‘winner’ and which the ‘loser.’ ” Id. at 975 . [¶ 82] Martel et al. lost on all issues that were decided by motion before the court, after which the court dismissed the remaining three counts by consent.

1999See Aucella v. Town of Winslow, 564 A.2d 68, 69 (Me.1989).

1990“We have adopted a functional test for determining the sufficiency of real estate descriptions set forth in recorded lien certificates.” Aucella v. Town of Winslow, 564 A.2d at 69 .

1994Under the functional test, a description that (1) describes the property subject to the hen by metes and bounds or landmarks, see Oceanic Hotel Co., 57 A.2d at 144 , or (2) refers to a plan or map by name, or (3) tells the location of the particular plan or map is legally sufficient.

1989Oceanic Hotel Co. v. Angell, 143 Me. 160, 162 , 57 A.2d 143, 144 (1948).

2010A functional analysis is invoked to identify the prevailing party, which means that "the court must look at the lawsuit as a whole to determine which party was the winner and which the loser." Seacoast Hangar Condominium II Association v. Martel, 2001 ME 112 , ~ 31, 775 A.2d 1166, 1174 (internal punctuation and citation omitted).

2010A functional analysis is invoked to identify the prevailing party, which means that "the court must look at the lawsuit as a whole to determine which party was the winner and which the loser." Seacoast Hangar Condominium II Association v. Martel, 2001 ME 112 , ~ 31, 775 A.2d 1166, 1174 (internal punctuation and citation omitted).

2008No. 1, 2001 ME 59, ¶ 16 , 769 A.2d 857, 862-63 . [¶ 10] In evaluating whether an entity or individual, individually or collectively, qualifies as “an agency or public official” for purposes of the Freedom of Access Act, we look to “the function that the entity performs.” Dow v. Caribou Chamber of Commerce & Indus., 2005 ME 113, ¶ 12 , 884 A.2d 667, 670 (quoting Town of Burlington, 2001 ME 59, ¶ 16 , 769 A.2d at 862-63 ). [¶ 11] We have established a four-part test, applying this functional analysis, to determine if a particular entity or citizen, individually or collectively, as a result of ac

2008No. 1, 2001 ME 59, ¶ 16 , 769 A.2d 857, 862-63 . [¶ 10] In evaluating whether an entity or individual, individually or collectively, qualifies as “an agency or public official” for purposes of the Freedom of Access Act, we look to “the function that the entity performs.” Dow v. Caribou Chamber of Commerce & Indus., 2005 ME 113, ¶ 12 , 884 A.2d 667, 670 (quoting Town of Burlington, 2001 ME 59, ¶ 16 , 769 A.2d at 862-63 ). [¶ 11] We have established a four-part test, applying this functional analysis, to determine if a particular entity or citizen, individually or collectively, as a result of ac

2005Determining who is the winning party relies on whether failure to show damages on the breach of fiduciary duty claim ameliorates the court's judgment that defendants breached their fiduciary duty, because surmising the "prevailing party" is based "upon the merits, not upon the damages." Hoitt v. Hall, 661 A.2d 669, 674 (Me. 1995).

2005When engaging the question of who is the prevailing party the court should utilize a functional analysis, looking to the facts of the "lawsuit as a whole to determine which party was the 'winner' and which the 'loser'." Landis v. Hannaford Brothers Co., 2000 NIB 111, <JI 6, 754 A.2d 958, 959 (quoting Dodge v. United Services Automobile Association, 417 A.2d 969, 975 (Me. 1980)).

2001See Nicholson v. Nicholson, 2000 ME 12, ¶ 10 , 747 A.2d 588, 591 . [¶ 31] “Who is the prevailing party is to be determined by a functional analysis, rather than a mechanical application of ... [the rule governing costs].” Dodge v. United Servs.

2001See Nicholson v. Nicholson, 2000 ME 12, ¶ 10 , 747 A.2d 588, 591 . [¶ 31] “Who is the prevailing party is to be determined by a functional analysis, rather than a mechanical application of ... [the rule governing costs].” Dodge v. United Servs.

1994See Nadeau, 572 A.2d at 491 .

1987In Davis v. City of Ellsworth, 281 A.2d 138, 139 (Me.1971), this Court adopted a functional test and found that the property was described with reasonable certainty because “the title examiner was clearly directed to a particular lot on a particular map... .” In this case, it is equally clear that a title examiner would search in vain under the name of Cary for the foreclosed tax lien mortgages.

1983The rule is well stated in Ramey Construction Co. v. The Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, 616 F.2d 464, 467 (10th Cir.1980), which was cited by this Court in Sabrina M: Even though we may not summarily reject findings adopted verbatim, we must view the challenged findings and the record as a whole with a more critical eye to insure that the trial court has adequately performed its judicial function. ... ‘[T]he greater the extent to which the Court’s eventual decision reflects no independent work on its part, the more careful we are obliged to be in our review.’ In re Las Colinas, Inc

1983The rule is well stated in Ramey Construction Co. v. The Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, 616 F.2d 464, 467 (10th Cir.1980), which was cited by this Court in Sabrina M: Even though we may not summarily reject findings adopted verbatim, we must view the challenged findings and the record as a whole with a more critical eye to insure that the trial court has adequately performed its judicial function. ... ‘[T]he greater the extent to which the Court’s eventual decision reflects no independent work on its part, the more careful we are obliged to be in our review.’ In re Las Colinas, Inc

1982See Searfus v. Northern Gas Co., 472 P.2d 966 (Alaska 1970); Burton v. Crawford and Co., 89 N.M. 436 , 553 P.2d 716 (1976); Woody v. Waibel, 276 Or. 189 , 554 P.2d 492 (1976).

1981State v. Catlin, Me., 392 A.2d 27, 32 (1978).

1978Michaud v. Inhabitants of Town of Livermore, Me., 383 A.2d 45, 47 (1978).