18 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blance v. Alleygreen2 sentences2017They contend it is settled law of the case and even if the Law Court was operating on an record that was subsequently discovered to be inaccurate, this court cannot revisit the merger issue with respect to Road A. The law of the case doctrine does not preclude, as is the case here, reconsideration of an issue that was decided on "essentially different facts." Blance v. Alley, 404 A.2d 587, 589 (Me. 1979) (holding "absent a showing of essentially different facts, the decision by an appellate court on a given issue is to be followed in the trial court once the case is remanded."); Raymond v. Ray 2017They contend it is settled law of the case and even if the Law Court was operating on an record that was subsequently discovered to be inaccurate, this court cannot revisit the merger issue with respect to Road A. The law of the case doctrine does not preclude, as is the case here, reconsideration of an issue that was decided on "essentially different facts." Blance v. Alley 404 A.2d 587, 589 (Me. 1979) (holding /Jabsent a showing of essentially different 1 facts, the decision by an appellate court on a given issue is to be followed in the trial court once the case is remanded. 1 '); Raymond v | 5 | 6 |
Grant v. City of Sacogreen2 sentences2010Id·., \Jr r-·a--t v fl, , City of Saco, 436 A.2d 403, 405 (Me. 1981); Sprague v. Washburn, 447 A.2d 784, 787 (Me. 1982). 1993The law of the case doctrine is based on “the sound policy that in the interests of finality and intra-court comity a Superior Court justice should not, in subsequent proceedings involving the same case, overrule or reconsider the decision of another justice.” Grant v. City of Saco, 436 A.2d 403, 405 (Me.1981). | 4 | 5 |
Sprague v. Washburngreen2 sentences2010The law of the case doctrine reflects the "wise policy that a judge should not in the same case overrule or reconsider the decision of another judge of coordinate jurisdiction." Blance v. Alley, 404 A.2d 587, 589 (Me. 1979) The doctrine serves a "practical judicial policy" that rulings on questions of law that are "clearly decided in the same action" should not be reopened by another judge in the same case except for "the most compelling reasons." Spragu~ v. Washburn, 447 A.2d 784, 787 (Me. 1982) The law of the case doctrine resembles but does not operate as res judicata; nor does it deprive a 2010Id·., \Jr r-·a--t v fl, , City of Saco, 436 A.2d 403, 405 (Me. 1981); Sprague v. Washburn, 447 A.2d 784, 787 (Me. 1982). | 3 | 3 |
Raymond v. Raymondgreen2 sentences2017They contend it is settled law of the case and even if the Law Court was operating on an record that was subsequently discovered to be inaccurate, this court cannot revisit the merger issue with respect to Road A. The law of the case doctrine does not preclude, as is the case here, reconsideration of an issue that was decided on "essentially different facts." Blance v. Alley, 404 A.2d 587, 589 (Me. 1979) (holding "absent a showing of essentially different facts, the decision by an appellate court on a given issue is to be followed in the trial court once the case is remanded."); Raymond v. Ray 2017They contend it is settled law of the case and even if the Law Court was operating on an record that was subsequently discovered to be inaccurate, this court cannot revisit the merger issue with respect to Road A. The law of the case doctrine does not preclude, as is the case here, reconsideration of an issue that was decided on "essentially different facts." Blance v. Alley 404 A.2d 587, 589 (Me. 1979) (holding /Jabsent a showing of essentially different 1 facts, the decision by an appellate court on a given issue is to be followed in the trial court once the case is remanded. 1 '); Raymond v | 2 | 2 |
Monopoly, Inc. v. Aldrichgreen2 sentences2016See Monopoly, Inc. v. Aldri h, 683 A.2d 506, 510 (Me. 1996). 2007This doctrine applies to "proceedings involving the same case." Monopoly, Inc. v. Aldrich, 683 A.2d 506, 510 (Me. 1996) (quoting Grant v. City of Saco, 436 A.2d 403, 405 (Me. 1981)). | 2 | 2 |
Arn H. Pearson v. Mary Lou Wendellgreen2 sentences2021See Pearson v. Wendell, 2015 ME 136 , ,, 26 28, 125 A.3d 1149 . 2021See Pearson v. Wendell, 2015 ME 136 , ,, 26 28, 125 A.3d 1149 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Barry J. Griffingreen1 sentence2008See State v. Brackett, 2000 ME 54, ¶¶ 6-7, 754 A.2d 337, 339 (recognizing that in limine rulings are normally not final until the evidence is offered at trial); Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 103.7 at 25 (2000 ed.); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 104 (1st Cir.1987) (“[I]t is too great a handicap to bind a trial judge to a ruling on a subtle evidentiary question, requiring the most delicate balancing, outside a precise factual context.”). . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brackettgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Brackett, 2000 ME 54, ¶¶ 6-7, 754 A.2d 337, 339 (recognizing that in limine rulings are normally not final until the evidence is offered at trial); Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 103.7 at 25 (2000 ed.); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 104 (1st Cir.1987) (“[I]t is too great a handicap to bind a trial judge to a ruling on a subtle evidentiary question, requiring the most delicate balancing, outside a precise factual context.”). . 2008See State v. Brackett, 2000 ME 54, ¶¶ 6-7, 754 A.2d 337, 339 (recognizing that in limine rulings are normally not final until the evidence is offered at trial); Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 103.7 at 25 (2000 ed.); United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 104 (1st Cir.1987) (“[I]t is too great a handicap to bind a trial judge to a ruling on a subtle evidentiary question, requiring the most delicate balancing, outside a precise factual context.”). . | 1 | 1 |
Calero-Colon v. Betancourt-Lebrongreen1 sentence2004False Arrest (against the Windham Defendants) The elements of a false arrest claim are generally as follows: “(1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the defendant had no privilege to cause the confinement.” Calero-Colon v. Betancourt-Lebron, 68 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing Restatement (Second) Of Torts §§ 35, 118 cmt. b (1965)). | 1 | 1 |
Musso v. Hourigangreen2 sentences1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736 , 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170 , 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986). 1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1 |
John J. Helton v. William P. Clements, Jr., Governor of Texasgreen2 sentences1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736 , 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170 , 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986). 1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Craft v. Wipfgreen2 sentences1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736 , 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170 , 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986). 1989See Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir.1988); see also Craft v. Wipf 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Halegreen2 sentences1979See United States v. Dovico, 261 F.Supp. 862, 869 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d on other grounds, 380 F.2d 325 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 , 88 S.Ct. 308 , 19 L.Ed.2d 302 (1967); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.Super. 407, 412 , 317 A.2d 731, 734 (App.Div.1974). 1979See United States v. Dovico, 261 F.Supp. 862, 869 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d on other grounds, 380 F.2d 325 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 , 88 S.Ct. 308 , 19 L.Ed.2d 302 (1967); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.Super. 407, 412 , 317 A.2d 731, 734 (App.Div.1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Duboisgreen1 sentence1979State v. Fitzherbert, Me., 361 A.2d 916, 918 (1976); Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, Me., 259 A.2d 364, 367 (1969); State v. Dubois, Me., 258 A.2d 797, 798 (1969); Belanger v. Belanger, Me., 240 A.2d 743, 744 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Belanger v. Belangergreen1 sentence1979State v. Fitzherbert, Me., 361 A.2d 916, 918 (1976); Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, Me., 259 A.2d 364, 367 (1969); State v. Dubois, Me., 258 A.2d 797, 798 (1969); Belanger v. Belanger, Me., 240 A.2d 743, 744 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Alfred Dovicogreen1 sentence1979See United States v. Dovico, 261 F.Supp. 862, 869 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d on other grounds, 380 F.2d 325 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 , 88 S.Ct. 308 , 19 L.Ed.2d 302 (1967); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.Super. 407, 412 , 317 A.2d 731, 734 (App.Div.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authoritygreen1 sentence1979State v. Fitzherbert, Me., 361 A.2d 916, 918 (1976); Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, Me., 259 A.2d 364, 367 (1969); State v. Dubois, Me., 258 A.2d 797, 798 (1969); Belanger v. Belanger, Me., 240 A.2d 743, 744 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Dento v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1979See United States v. Dovico, 261 F.Supp. 862, 869 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d on other grounds, 380 F.2d 325 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 , 88 S.Ct. 308 , 19 L.Ed.2d 302 (1967); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.Super. 407, 412 , 317 A.2d 731, 734 (App.Div.1974). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dovicogreen1 sentence1979See United States v. Dovico, 261 F.Supp. 862, 869 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d on other grounds, 380 F.2d 325 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 , 88 S.Ct. 308 , 19 L.Ed.2d 302 (1967); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.Super. 407, 412 , 317 A.2d 731, 734 (App.Div.1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fitzherbertgreen1 sentence1979State v. Fitzherbert, Me., 361 A.2d 916, 918 (1976); Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, Me., 259 A.2d 364, 367 (1969); State v. Dubois, Me., 258 A.2d 797, 798 (1969); Belanger v. Belanger, Me., 240 A.2d 743, 744 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
American Type Founders Co. v. Greenwood Printing Co.green1 sentence1979See United States v. Dovico, 261 F.Supp. 862, 869 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d on other grounds, 380 F.2d 325 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 , 88 S.Ct. 308 , 19 L.Ed.2d 302 (1967); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.Super. 407, 412 , 317 A.2d 731, 734 (App.Div.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. O'Rourke
green
2 sentences2014First, the Court is not persuaded that the law of the case doctrine establishes that the pertinent contract language is ambiguous. 2 The law of the case doctrine "is an articulation of the sound policy that a trial judge should not in the same case overrule or reconsider the decision of another trial judge." Anderson v. O'Rourke, 2008 ME 42 , ~ 13 n.l, 942 A.2d 680, 684 . 2014First, the Court is not persuaded that the law of the case doctrine establishes that the pertinent contract language is ambiguous. 2 The law of the case doctrine "is an articulation of the sound policy that a trial judge should not in the same case overrule or reconsider the decision of another trial judge." Anderson v. O'Rourke, 2008 ME 42 , ~ 13 n.l, 942 A.2d 680, 684 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Messenger v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2011As Mr. Justice Holmes stated for the United States Supreme Court, the phrase "law of the case" merely expresses "the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power." Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 , 32 S. Ct. 739, 740 , 2 Additionally, even though '"[f]orum selection clauses are prima facie valid' and generally are enforceable unless the result would be unjust or would contradict the forum's public policy," see Clean Harbors Envtl. 2011As Mr. Justice Holmes stated for the United States Supreme Court, the phrase "law of the case" merely expresses "the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power." Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 , 32 S. Ct. 739, 740 , 2 Additionally, even though '"[f]orum selection clauses are prima facie valid' and generally are enforceable unless the result would be unjust or would contradict the forum's public policy," see Clean Harbors Envtl. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lord v. Murphy
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.
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.