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 1985–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tuttle v. Raymondgreen2 sentences2020Similarly, gross negligence "covers too broad and too vague an area of 2 behavior" and to use that as a standard would result in "an unfair and inefficient use of the doctrine of punitive damages." Id. 2009Id. at 1361-62 (noting that a gross negligence or reckless requirement "covers too broad and too vague an area of behavior, resulting in an unfair and inefficient use of the doctrine of punitive damages" that would "allow virtually limitless imposition of punitive damages/' and would dull lithe potentially keen edge of the doctrine as an effective deterrent of truly reprehensible conduct"). | 4 | 5 |
Batchelder v. Realty Resources Hospitality, LLCgreen2 sentences2008Hospitality, LLC 2007 ME 17 , 'J[ 13, 914 A.2d 1116, 1121 (the purpose of the higher standard was to serve the goal of "avoiding an overbroad application of the doctrine of punitive damages," which could dull "the potentially keen edge of the doctrine as an effective deterrent of truly reprehensible conduct") (citations omitted). 6 On July 10, 2007, the Board voted to initiate a complaint against petitioner, and informed petitioner of this decision by letter dated July 12, 2007. 2008Hospitality, LLC 2007 ME 17 , 'J[ 13, 914 A.2d 1116, 1121 (the purpose of the higher standard was to serve the goal of "avoiding an overbroad application of the doctrine of punitive damages," which could dull "the potentially keen edge of the doctrine as an effective deterrent of truly reprehensible conduct") (citations omitted). 6 On July 10, 2007, the Board voted to initiate a complaint against petitioner, and informed petitioner of this decision by letter dated July 12, 2007. | 1 | 1 |
Zemero Corp. v. Hallgreen2 sentences2004See Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 98 , 1 17, 798 A.2d 1104 , 1111: see also Zemero Corp. v. Hall, 2003 ME 111 , 7 10, 831 A.2d 413, 416 . 2004See Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 98 , 1 17, 798 A.2d 1104 , 1111: see also Zemero Corp. v. Hall, 2003 ME 111 , 7 10, 831 A.2d 413, 416 . | 1 | 1 |
Rutland v. Mullengreen2 sentences2004See Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 98 , 1 17, 798 A.2d 1104 , 1111: see also Zemero Corp. v. Hall, 2003 ME 111 , 7 10, 831 A.2d 413, 416 . 2004See Rutland v. Mullen, 2002 ME 98 , 1 17, 798 A.2d 1104 , 1111: see also Zemero Corp. v. Hall, 2003 ME 111 , 7 10, 831 A.2d 413, 416 . | 1 | 1 |
Haworth v. Feigongreen1 sentence1994Haworth v. Feigon, 623 A.2d 150, 159 (Me.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Forbes v. Wells Beach Casino, Inc.green2 sentences1989Forbes v. Wells Beach Casino, Inc., 409 A.2d 646, 655 (Me.1979). 1989Forbes v. Wells Beach Casino, Inc., 409 A.2d 646, 655 (Me.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardationgreen1 sentence1985For the benefit of litigants, bench, and bar, however, we conclude that it is appropriate to confront this issue now in the context of our reexamination of the doctrine of punitive damages, rather than postpone it to some future date. *1347 This Court recently noted that “although the preponderance [of the evidence] standard normally prevails in a civil case, appellate courts in a large number of categories of litigation have found compelling reasons for requiring a higher form of proof.” Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health, 481 A.2d 139, 150 (Me.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. McCaffertygreen2 sentences1985Civ.P. 59(a); Hall v. Edwards, 138 Me. 231, 233-34 , 23 A.2d 889 -890 (1942); Sullivan v. McCafferty, 117 Me. 1, 9 , 102 A. 324, 327 (1917). *1344 We also observe that the lack of precision in measuring appropriate exemplary awards is not a trait unique to the doctrine of punitive damages. 1985Civ.P. 59(a); Hall v. Edwards, 138 Me. 231, 233-34 , 23 A.2d 889 -890 (1942); Sullivan v. McCafferty, 117 Me. 1, 9 , 102 A. 324, 327 (1917). *1344 We also observe that the lack of precision in measuring appropriate exemplary awards is not a trait unique to the doctrine of punitive damages. | 1 | 1 |
Braley v. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence1985Rather, the doctrine of punitive damages survives because it continues to serve the useful purposes of expressing society’s disapproval of intolerable conduct and deterring such conduct where no other remedy would suffice.” Mallor and Roberts, supra note 4, at 641; see Braley v. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Co., 440 A.2d 359, 361, 362 (Me.1982); Foss v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 309 A.2d 339, 345 (Me.1973); see also Mallor and Roberts, supra note 4, at 647-49; Note, supra note 4, at 451-55. | 1 | 1 |
Foss v. Maine Turnpike Authoritygreen1 sentence1985Rather, the doctrine of punitive damages survives because it continues to serve the useful purposes of expressing society’s disapproval of intolerable conduct and deterring such conduct where no other remedy would suffice.” Mallor and Roberts, supra note 4, at 641; see Braley v. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Co., 440 A.2d 359, 361, 362 (Me.1982); Foss v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 309 A.2d 339, 345 (Me.1973); see also Mallor and Roberts, supra note 4, at 647-49; Note, supra note 4, at 451-55. | 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 Daniel Nickerson v. Alan Carter
green
2 sentences2018Jewett asserts that even though the jury did not award punitive damages, the evidence was prejudicial and influenced the jury's award of compensatory damages on the nuisance claim. [¶ 18] "We afford trial courts 'wide discretion' in making evidentiary rulings, and review for abuse of discretion their rulings on the admissibility of evidence with respect to its prejudicial effect." Estate of Nickerson v. Carter , 2014 ME 19 , ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 658 . [¶ 19] The court did not err or abuse its discretion when it denied Jewett's motion in limine, which sought to exclude evidence of Jewett's insurer's c 2018Jewett asserts that even though the jury did not award punitive damages, the evidence was prejudicial and influenced the jury's award of compensatory damages on the nuisance claim. [¶ 18] "We afford trial courts 'wide discretion' in making evidentiary rulings, and review for abuse of discretion their rulings on the admissibility of evidence with respect to its prejudicial effect." Estate of Nickerson v. Carter , 2014 ME 19 , ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 658 . [¶ 19] The court did not err or abuse its discretion when it denied Jewett's motion in limine, which sought to exclude evidence of Jewett's insurer's c | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Gayer v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
green
1 sentence2000Gayer, 687 A.2d at 622 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Pike v. Dilling
green
1 sentence1985Since adopting the doctrine of punitive damages in Pike v. Dilling, 48 Me. 539 (1861), this Court has frequently and consistently reaffirmed the availability of such awards at common law under the appropriate circumstances. 5 “It would be simplistic to characterize [this position] as mere blind adherence to an outmoded principle. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hall v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1985Civ.P. 59(a); Hall v. Edwards, 138 Me. 231, 233-34 , 23 A.2d 889 -890 (1942); Sullivan v. McCafferty, 117 Me. 1, 9 , 102 A. 324, 327 (1917). *1344 We also observe that the lack of precision in measuring appropriate exemplary awards is not a trait unique to the doctrine of punitive damages. 1985Civ.P. 59(a); Hall v. Edwards, 138 Me. 231, 233-34 , 23 A.2d 889 -890 (1942); Sullivan v. McCafferty, 117 Me. 1, 9 , 102 A. 324, 327 (1917). *1344 We also observe that the lack of precision in measuring appropriate exemplary awards is not a trait unique to the doctrine of punitive damages. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.