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.
14 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doughty v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2010The Conversion Claim For a claim of conversion, a plaintiff must show "(1) a property interest in the goods; (2) the right to their possession at the time of the alleged conversion; and (3) when the holder has acquired possession rightfully, a demand by the person entitled to possession and C1 refusC1] by the holder to surrender." DOlIgIJfy v. SlIlIivr7l1, 661 A.2d 1112, 1122 (Me. 1995). 2005See Doughty v. Sullivan, 661 A.2d 1112, 1122 (Me. 1995). | 3 | 3 |
Ocean National Bank of Kennebunk v. Dimentgreen2 sentences2019Ocean Nat'l Bank v. Diment, 462 A.2d 35, 40 (Me. 1983). 2015Bank of Kennebunk v. Diment, 462 A.2d 35, 39 (Me. 1983) (conversion requires defendant have "an intent to exercise a dominion or control over the goods which is in fact inconsistent with the plaintiffs rights."); see also James v. Wood, 82 Me. 173, 174 , 19 A. 160, 161 (1889) (dismissing trespass action where plaintifflacked legal title because moose at issue was trapped illegally). | 2 | 2 |
Innovative Network Solutions, Inc. v. Onestar Communications, LLCgreen1 sentence2024Likewise, as the Plaintiff's conversion claim is an alternative claim for relief to his breach of contract claim and the Plaintiff has a contract remedy for his damage, he is barred from recovering on Count 1V of the Complaint See Innovative Network Sols., Ine. v. Onestar Communications, LLC, 283 F. Supp. 2d 295, 301 (D, Me. 2003); Riley v. Gilmore, 2006 WL 5255497 (Me. | 1 | 1 |
Bradford v. Dumondgreen1 sentence2015Conversion A claim for conversion requires the plaintiff demonstrate "a property interest in the goods" and "the right to their possession at the time of the alleged conversion." Bradford v. Dumond, 675 A.2d 957, 962 (Me. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Leighton v. Fleet Bank of Mainegreen1 sentence2015Leighton v. Fleet Bank of Maine, 634 A.2d 453, 457 (Me. 1993) (holding conversion claim failed because there was no finding that defendants had actual or constructive possession ofthe claimed chattels). 2. | 1 | 1 |
James v. Woodgreen2 sentences2015Bank of Kennebunk v. Diment, 462 A.2d 35, 39 (Me. 1983) (conversion requires defendant have "an intent to exercise a dominion or control over the goods which is in fact inconsistent with the plaintiffs rights."); see also James v. Wood, 82 Me. 173, 174 , 19 A. 160, 161 (1889) (dismissing trespass action where plaintifflacked legal title because moose at issue was trapped illegally). 2015Bank of Kennebunk v. Diment, 462 A.2d 35, 39 (Me. 1983) (conversion requires defendant have "an intent to exercise a dominion or control over the goods which is in fact inconsistent with the plaintiffs rights."); see also James v. Wood, 82 Me. 173, 174 , 19 A. 160, 161 (1889) (dismissing trespass action where plaintifflacked legal title because moose at issue was trapped illegally). | 1 | 1 |
Rutland v. Mullengreen1 sentence2014Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage In order to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, Plaintiff must prove: (1) that a valid contract or prospective economic advantage existed; (2) that the Defendant interfered with that contract or advantage through fraud or intimidation; and (3) that such interference proximately caused damages. 13 Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 1998 , , 13, 798 A. 2d 1104, 1110 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Maine Industrial Services, Inc.green1 sentence2000See Moore v. Industrial Services, Inc., 645 A.2d 626, 629 (Me. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of John R. Barron v. Shapiro & Morley, LLC
green
2 sentences2024“The necessary elements to establish a claim for conversion are a showing that (1) the person claiming that his or her property was converted has a property interest in the property; (2) the person had the right to possession at the time of the alleged conversion; and (3) the party with the right to possession made a demand for its return that was denied by the holder.” Id. [¶30] Belyea ties his argument regarding the conversion claim to his success regarding his claim for breach of contract. 2024Estate ofBarron v. Shapiro & Morley, LLC, 2017 ME 51 , ,r 14, 157 A.3d 769 . | 5 | 2018–2024 |
Withers v. Hackett
green
2 sentences2020Id. 15 Maine law has long limited the tort of conversion to claims relating to personal, rather than real property. 2015The key element to civil conversion is invasion of possession or the right to possession of the property at the time of conversion. 7 Withers v. Hackett, 1998 ME 164, ¶ 7 , 714 A.2d 798 . | 2 | 2015–2020 |
Newbury v. Virgin
green
2 sentences2018While it is true that in a conversion claim the traditional measure of damages is the value of the property at the time of the conversion, "[i]n certain cases ... consequential damages ... may be warranted when the plaintiff can show that the damages were proximately caused by the defendant's acts and the amount 0£ damages can be shown with reasonable certainty." NewbttrtJ v. Virgin, 2002 ME 119 , 1 16, 802 A.2d 413 . 2018While it is true that in a conversion claim the traditional measure of damages is the value of the property at the time of the conversion, "[i]n certain cases ... consequential damages ... may be warranted when the plaintiff can show that the damages were proximately caused by the defendant's acts and the amount 0£ damages can be shown with reasonable certainty." NewbttrtJ v. Virgin, 2002 ME 119 , 1 16, 802 A.2d 413 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Townsend v. Chute Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences2002Co., 1997 ME 46, ¶ 8 , 691 A.2d 199, 202 ). [¶ 16] In a conversion claim, the traditional measure of damages is the full value of the property at the time of the unlawful conversion. 2002Co., 1997 ME 46, ¶ 8 , 691 A.2d 199, 202 ). [¶ 16] In a conversion claim, the traditional measure of damages is the full value of the property at the time of the unlawful conversion. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.