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.
13 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Ronald J. Goldberggreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100 ; Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81 , 907 N.E.2d 646, 658 (2009) (“The key to waiver by conduct is misconduct occurring after an express warning has been given to the defendant about the defendant’s behavior and the consequences of proceeding without counsel.” (alteration omitted)); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 547-48 (Tenn.2000) (citing cases). 2016See, e.g., Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100 ; Commonwealth v. Means, 907 N.E.2d 646, 658 (Mass. 2009) (“The key to waiver by conduct is misconduct occurring after an express warning has been given to the defendant about the defendant’s behavior and the consequences of proceeding without counsel.” (alteration omitted)); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 547-48 (Tenn. 2000) (citing cases). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Meansgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100 ; Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81 , 907 N.E.2d 646, 658 (2009) (“The key to waiver by conduct is misconduct occurring after an express warning has been given to the defendant about the defendant’s behavior and the consequences of proceeding without counsel.” (alteration omitted)); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 547-48 (Tenn.2000) (citing cases). 2016See, e.g., Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100 ; Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81 , 907 N.E.2d 646, 658 (2009) (“The key to waiver by conduct is misconduct occurring after an express warning has been given to the defendant about the defendant’s behavior and the consequences of proceeding without counsel.” (alteration omitted)); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 547-48 (Tenn.2000) (citing cases). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Carruthersgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100 ; Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81 , 907 N.E.2d 646, 658 (2009) (“The key to waiver by conduct is misconduct occurring after an express warning has been given to the defendant about the defendant’s behavior and the consequences of proceeding without counsel.” (alteration omitted)); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 547-48 (Tenn.2000) (citing cases). 2016See, e.g., Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100 ; Commonwealth v. Means, 907 N.E.2d 646, 658 (Mass. 2009) (“The key to waiver by conduct is misconduct occurring after an express warning has been given to the defendant about the defendant’s behavior and the consequences of proceeding without counsel.” (alteration omitted)); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 547-48 (Tenn. 2000) (citing cases). | 2 | 2 |
Drake v. Smithgreen2 sentences2004See Drake, 390 A.2d at 545 . 1979Section 3741 of title 22 (Supp. 1965-78) provides only as follows: , “The department is authorized to administer and operate a program of aid to dependent children within the Federal Social Security Act and any amendments and additions thereto.” Drake v. Smith, supra, makes clear that the Legislature’s authorization of the state’s participation with the federal government in a cooperative welfare program, such as aid to families with dependent children, does not itself constitute an implied waiver of sovereign immunity. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Desirgreen1 sentence2023See US. v. Desir, 273 F.3d 39, 45-46 (1st Cir. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Watsongreen2 sentences2006Id. ¶ 10, 750 A.2d at 589-90 . 1 [¶ 16] Ordinarily, in reviewing the asserted waiver of other fundamental con stitutional rights, we will apply the standard by which every reasonable presumption is made against a finding of waiver, see Watson, 2006 ME 80, ¶ 15 , 900 A.2d at 708 (“[T]he right to representation by counsel requires that every reasonable presumption must be indulged against waiver.”). 2006Id. ¶ 10, 750 A.2d at 589-90 . 1 [¶ 16] Ordinarily, in reviewing the asserted waiver of other fundamental con stitutional rights, we will apply the standard by which every reasonable presumption is made against a finding of waiver, see Watson, 2006 ME 80, ¶ 15 , 900 A.2d at 708 (“[T]he right to representation by counsel requires that every reasonable presumption must be indulged against waiver.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Paul v. Oatesgreen2 sentences1984See id. at 78 . [1] It is beyond dispute that the record involved in the present case is not admissible as a public record. 1984See id. at 78 . 1 It is beyond dispute that the record involved in the present case is not admissible as a public record. | 1 | 1 |
Pino v. Maplewood Packing Co.green1 sentence1979See Pino v. Maplewood Packing Co., Me., 375 A.2d 534, 538-39 (1977); Interstate Indus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Danforth v. Emmons
green
2 sentences2008The language of section 2-804(a) is clear and unambiguous; 2 as we stated in Danforth in connection with section 2-804’s predecessor, “the sole test of the right to maintain the action, is the right of the injured person to have maintained an action, had death not ensued.” Danforth, 124 Me. at 159 , 126 A. at 822 ; see also Restatement (Second) of ToRts § 493(2) (1965) (stating that the statute controls whether the contributory negligence of a beneficiary bars recovery). [¶ 8] Arnica nevertheless urges us to construe section 2-804 as containing an implied exception that bars the Estate’s actio 2008The language of section 2-804(a) is clear and unambiguous; 2 as we stated in Danforth in connection with section 2-804’s predecessor, “the sole test of the right to maintain the action, is the right of the injured person to have maintained an action, had death not ensued.” Danforth, 124 Me. at 159 , 126 A. at 822 ; see also Restatement (Second) of ToRts § 493(2) (1965) (stating that the statute controls whether the contributory negligence of a beneficiary bars recovery). [¶ 8] Arnica nevertheless urges us to construe section 2-804 as containing an implied exception that bars the Estate’s actio | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Chasse
green
1 sentence2006Id. ¶ 10, 750 A.2d at 589-90 . 1 [¶ 16] Ordinarily, in reviewing the asserted waiver of other fundamental con stitutional rights, we will apply the standard by which every reasonable presumption is made against a finding of waiver, see Watson, 2006 ME 80, ¶ 15 , 900 A.2d at 708 (“[T]he right to representation by counsel requires that every reasonable presumption must be indulged against waiver.”). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Curtis
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Julius C. Immordino and Joanne Immordino, and Third-Party v. Joseph C. Costa, Third-Party
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
First Congregational Church v. Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance
green
1 sentence1915Co., 158 Mass., 475 , the plaintiff contended that the use of the torch and the change in conditions affecting the risk occurred through making ordinary repairs in a reasonable and proper way, and that in the prohibitive provision of the policy there was an implied exception of what is done in making ordinary repairs. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.