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 1979–2019 0 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 sentences2003Bank, 1997 ME 20, § 11 , 689 A.2d at 599 . * Res judicata is distinguishable from the related doctrine of collateral estoppel, sometimes referred to as “issue preclusion,” “which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case.” Res judicata, also referred to as “claim preclusion” “prohibits relitigation of an entire cause of action. ...” Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644 (Me. 1982) (emphasis added). 2000“Unlike the related rule of collateral estoppel or ‘issue preclusion,’ which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case, the doctrine of bar, or ‘claim preclusion,’ prohibits relitigation of an entire ‘cause of action’... .” Id. | 11, 705 A.2d at 1113 (quoting Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644 (Me. 1982)). | 5 | 5 |
Fleet Bank of Maine v. Hoffgreen2 sentences2015The Law Court has stated, "the existence of a related claim that does not affect the rights of the plaintiff should not generally prevent entry of a judgment on the plaintiffs claim." Fleet Nat 'I Bank v. Gardiner Hillside Estates, Inc., 2002 ME 120 , ~ 12, 802 A.2d 408 ; see also Fleet Bank of Me. v. Hoff, 580 A.2d 690, 691 (Me. 1990) (upholding the trial court's entry of final judgment where other claims arose out of the same transaction but concerned only indemnification and personal guarantees). 2 The court's statement of specific findings may be short, but it must be more than a summary r 2014The Law Court has stated that "the existence of a related claim that does not affect the rights of the plaintiff should not generally prevent entry of a judgment on the plaintiffs claim." Fleet Nat 'l Bank v. Gardiner Hillside Estates, Inc., 2002 ME 120 , ~ 12, 802 A.2d 408 ; see also Fleet Bank of Me. v. Hoff, 580 A.2d 690, 691 (Me. 1990) (upholding the trial court's entry offinaljudgment where other claims arose out of the same transaction but concerned only indemnification and personal guarantees). | 3 | 3 |
Casco Northern Bank v. JBI Associates, Ltd.green1 sentence2008Casco Northern Bank v. IBI Associates at 667 A.2d 856, 860-1 (Me. 1995) states what the related rule is designed to protect. | 1 | 1 |
Davies v. City of Bathgreen1 sentence2006Davies v. City of Bath, 364 A.2d 1269, 1272-73 (Me.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Kornton v. Conrad, Inc.green2 sentences2006This rule is often called the "going and coming rule," e.g., Kornton v. Conrad, Inc., 119 Nev. 123 , 67 P.3d 316, 317 (2003), a name also used for the related rule in workers' compensation law, [7] *371 Fournier v. Aetna, Inc., 2006 ME 71, ¶ 6 , 899 A.2d 787, 789 . 2006This rule is often called the "going and coming rule," e.g., Kornton v. Conrad, Inc., 119 Nev. 123 , 67 P.3d 316, 317 (2003), a name also used for the related rule in workers' compensation law, [7] *371 Fournier v. Aetna, Inc., 2006 ME 71, ¶ 6 , 899 A.2d 787, 789 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crommettgreen2 sentences2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d 2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d | 1 | 1 |
Fitzgerald v. City of Bangorgreen2 sentences2006See Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor, 1999 ME 50, ¶ 15 , 726 A.2d 1253, 1256 (“When the governmental function at issue is the discharge of responsibilities regarding taxation, we have consistently held that estoppel may never be invoked.”). 2006See Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor, 1999 ME 50, ¶ 15 , 726 A.2d 1253, 1256 (“When the governmental function at issue is the discharge of responsibilities regarding taxation, we have consistently held that estoppel may never be invoked.”). | 1 | 1 |
Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondellgreen2 sentences2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d 2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d | 1 | 1 |
Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Worksgreen2 sentences2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d 2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d | 1 | 1 |
Fournier v. Aetna, Inc.green2 sentences2006This rule is often called the "going and coming rule," e.g., Kornton v. Conrad, Inc., 119 Nev. 123 , 67 P.3d 316, 317 (2003), a name also used for the related rule in workers' compensation law, [7] *371 Fournier v. Aetna, Inc., 2006 ME 71, ¶ 6 , 899 A.2d 787, 789 . 2006This rule is often called the "going and coming rule," e.g., Kornton v. Conrad, Inc., 119 Nev. 123 , 67 P.3d 316, 317 (2003), a name also used for the related rule in workers' compensation law, [7] *371 Fournier v. Aetna, Inc., 2006 ME 71, ¶ 6 , 899 A.2d 787, 789 . | 1 | 1 |
Key Bank of Maine v. Park Entrance Motelgreen1 sentence2002Key Bank of Maine v. Park Entrance Motel, 640 A.2d 211, 212 (Me.1994). [¶ 12] Although we have found certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) to be an abuse of discretion when “the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims [in the complaint and the counterclaim] are so factually and legally intertwined that it would serve no purpose to enter final judgment on the complaint at this time,” Dravo Corp., 632 A.2d at 142 (improper to certify a judgment for plaintiff in breach of contract claim as final when unresolved counterclaim sought rescission of the contract), the existence of a related claim that doe | 1 | 1 |
Dravo Corp. v. Regional Waste Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2002Key Bank of Maine v. Park Entrance Motel, 640 A.2d 211, 212 (Me.1994). [¶ 12] Although we have found certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) to be an abuse of discretion when “the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims [in the complaint and the counterclaim] are so factually and legally intertwined that it would serve no purpose to enter final judgment on the complaint at this time,” Dravo Corp., 632 A.2d at 142 (improper to certify a judgment for plaintiff in breach of contract claim as final when unresolved counterclaim sought rescission of the contract), the existence of a related claim that doe | 1 | 1 |
Chandler v. Dubeygreen1 sentence1979Hossler v. Barry, Me., 403 A.2d 762, 767 (1979); Chandler v. Dubey, Me., 378 A.2d 1096, 1098 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Hossler Ex Rel. Dows v. Barrygreen1 sentence1979Hossler v. Barry, Me., 403 A.2d 762, 767 (1979); Chandler v. Dubey, Me., 378 A.2d 1096, 1098 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fleet National Bank v. Gardiner Hillside Estates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The Law Court has stated, "the existence of a related claim that does not affect the rights of the plaintiff should not generally prevent entry of a judgment on the plaintiffs claim." Fleet Nat 'I Bank v. Gardiner Hillside Estates, Inc., 2002 ME 120 , ~ 12, 802 A.2d 408 ; see also Fleet Bank of Me. v. Hoff, 580 A.2d 690, 691 (Me. 1990) (upholding the trial court's entry of final judgment where other claims arose out of the same transaction but concerned only indemnification and personal guarantees). 2 The court's statement of specific findings may be short, but it must be more than a summary r 2015The Law Court has stated, "the existence of a related claim that does not affect the rights of the plaintiff should not generally prevent entry of a judgment on the plaintiffs claim." Fleet Nat 'I Bank v. Gardiner Hillside Estates, Inc., 2002 ME 120 , ~ 12, 802 A.2d 408 ; see also Fleet Bank of Me. v. Hoff, 580 A.2d 690, 691 (Me. 1990) (upholding the trial court's entry of final judgment where other claims arose out of the same transaction but concerned only indemnification and personal guarantees). 2 The court's statement of specific findings may be short, but it must be more than a summary r | 2 | 2014–2015 |
State of Maine v. Richard J. Watson
green
2 sentences2019We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion, State v. Watson, 2016 ME 176, ¶ 10 , 152 A.3d 152 , and we review an alleged 3 In a related challenge, Dobbins asserts that the court erred by allowing Geary to assert his privilege against self-incrimination outside the jury’s presence. 2019We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion, State v. Watson, 2016 ME 176, ¶ 10 , 152 A.3d 152 , and we review an alleged 3 In a related challenge, Dobbins asserts that the court erred by allowing Geary to assert his privilege against self-incrimination outside the jury’s presence. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sandmaier v. Tahoe Development Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d 2006Two important common law doctrines arise from the nullum tempus doctrine: (1) the exception of the sovereign from statutes of limitations, 3 State v. Crommett, 151 Me. 188, 193 , 116 A.2d 614, 616-17 (1955); Inhabitants of Topsham v. Blondell, 82 Me. 152, 154 , 19 A. 93, 94 (1889); and (2) the rule that property interests may not be obtained from a governmental entity by adverse possession, Sandmaier, 2005 ME 126, ¶ 7 , 887 A.2d at 518-19 ; see also Inhabitants of Charlotte v. Pembroke Iron Works, 82 Me. 391, 396 , 19 A. 902, 904 (1890). [¶ 16] We abolished a related doctrine, the common law d | 1 | 2006–2006 |
MacHias Savings Bank v. Ramsdell
green
2 sentences2003Bank, 1997 ME 20, § 11 , 689 A.2d at 599 . * Res judicata is distinguishable from the related doctrine of collateral estoppel, sometimes referred to as “issue preclusion,” “which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case.” Res judicata, also referred to as “claim preclusion” “prohibits relitigation of an entire cause of action. ...” Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644 (Me. 1982) (emphasis added). 2003Bank, 1997 ME 20, § 11 , 689 A.2d at 599 . * Res judicata is distinguishable from the related doctrine of collateral estoppel, sometimes referred to as “issue preclusion,” “which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case.” Res judicata, also referred to as “claim preclusion” “prohibits relitigation of an entire cause of action. ...” Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644 (Me. 1982) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Camps Newfound/Owatonna Corp. v. Town of Harrison
green
1 sentence2000“Unlike the related rule of collateral estoppel or ‘issue preclusion,’ which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case, the doctrine of bar, or ‘claim preclusion,’ prohibits relitigation of an entire ‘cause of action’... .” Id. | 11, 705 A.2d at 1113 (quoting Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644 (Me. 1982)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kradoska v. Kipp
green
1 sentence2000“Unlike the related rule of collateral estoppel or ‘issue preclusion,’ which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case, the doctrine of bar, or ‘claim preclusion,’ prohibits relitigation of an entire ‘cause of action’... .” Id. | 11, 705 A.2d at 1113 (quoting Beegan v. Schmidt, 451 A.2d 642, 644 (Me. 1982)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.