11 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc., 578 A.2d 187, 188-89 (Me. 1990); Arbour v. Hazelton, 534 A.2d 1303, 1305 (Me. 1987); Letellier v. Small, 400 A.2d 371 , 376 n.3 (Me. 1979). 2019See Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc. , 578 A.2d 187 , 188-89 (Me. 1990) ; Arbour v. Hazelton , 534 A.2d 1303 , 1305 (Me. 1987) ; Letellier v. Small , 400 A.2d 371 , 376 n.3 (Me. 1979). | 2 | 2 |
Arbour v. Hazeltongreen2 sentences2019See Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc., 578 A.2d 187, 188-89 (Me. 1990); Arbour v. Hazelton, 534 A.2d 1303, 1305 (Me. 1987); Letellier v. Small, 400 A.2d 371 , 376 n.3 (Me. 1979). 2019See Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc. , 578 A.2d 187 , 188-89 (Me. 1990) ; Arbour v. Hazelton , 534 A.2d 1303 , 1305 (Me. 1987) ; Letellier v. Small , 400 A.2d 371 , 376 n.3 (Me. 1979). | 1 | 2 |
Doe I v. Individualsgreen2 sentences2014See Doe I v. Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249, 256 (D. 2014See Doe I v. Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249, 256 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Matthews v. Campbell Soup Companygreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Matthews v. Campbell Soup Co., 380 F.Supp. 1061, 1065 (S.D.Tex.1974) (“It is obvious that the ‘reasonable expectation’ approach is considerably more compatible and consistent with [sjection 402A which has been adopted as the law of Texas in product liability cases.”). 9 [¶ 15] With this framework in mind, we adopt the “reasonable expectation” test in Maine, to be used in strict liability cases alleging a defective food product pursuant to section 221. | 1 | 1 |
Loe v. Town of Thomastongreen2 sentences2002Loe v. Town of Thomaston, 600 A.2d 1090, 1092 (Me.1991) (“Under the parol evidence rule a binding partially integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that it is inconsistent with them.”); Karnofsky v. Elliott, 570 A.2d 1223, 1224 (Me. 1990) (“Consistent with the Restatement analysis, we conclude that the ... letter superseded the prior oral agreement to the extent they were inconsistent because the letter need not be a completely integrated agreement to be binding .... ”); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 213. 2002Loe v. Town of Thomaston, 600 A.2d 1090, 1092 (Me.1991) (“Under the parol evidence rule a binding partially integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that it is inconsistent with them.”); Karnofsky v. Elliott, 570 A.2d 1223, 1224 (Me. 1990) (“Consistent with the Restatement analysis, we conclude that the ... letter superseded the prior oral agreement to the extent they were inconsistent because the letter need not be a completely integrated agreement to be binding .... ”); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 213. | 1 | 1 |
Burrowes Corporation v. Readgreen2 sentences2002Therefore, evidence of a condition precedent may be considered, but only if the condition is not inconsistent with the language in the written agreement. *384 Burrowes Corp. v. Read, 151 Me. 92, 96-97 , 116 A.2d 127, 129 (1955) (quoting 3 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 634 (rev. ed. 1936)) ("`[I]t may be shown ... that the parties agreed by parol that the writing in question should not become effective until some future day or the happening of some contingency, if this is not inconsistent with the express terms of the writing.'"). [¶ 20] The parol evidence rule equally applies to negotiable instrume 2002Therefore, evidence of a condition precedent may be considered, but only if the condition is not inconsistent with the language in the written agreement. *384 Burrowes Corp. v. Read, 151 Me. 92, 96-97 , 116 A.2d 127, 129 (1955) (quoting 3 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 634 (rev. ed. 1936)) ("`[I]t may be shown ... that the parties agreed by parol that the writing in question should not become effective until some future day or the happening of some contingency, if this is not inconsistent with the express terms of the writing.'"). [¶ 20] The parol evidence rule equally applies to negotiable instrume | 1 | 1 |
Karnofsky v. Elliottgreen2 sentences2002Loe v. Town of Thomaston, 600 A.2d 1090, 1092 (Me.1991) (“Under the parol evidence rule a binding partially integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that it is inconsistent with them.”); Karnofsky v. Elliott, 570 A.2d 1223, 1224 (Me. 1990) (“Consistent with the Restatement analysis, we conclude that the ... letter superseded the prior oral agreement to the extent they were inconsistent because the letter need not be a completely integrated agreement to be binding .... ”); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 213. 2002Loe v. Town of Thomaston, 600 A.2d 1090, 1092 (Me.1991) (“Under the parol evidence rule a binding partially integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that it is inconsistent with them.”); Karnofsky v. Elliott, 570 A.2d 1223, 1224 (Me. 1990) (“Consistent with the Restatement analysis, we conclude that the ... letter superseded the prior oral agreement to the extent they were inconsistent because the letter need not be a completely integrated agreement to be binding .... ”); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 213. | 1 | 1 |
Eaton v. McCallgreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., Eaton v. McCall, 86 Me. 346, 350 , 29 A. 1103 (1894) (“[Ojrdinarily we think that the holder of a mortgage should be required to resort to the remedies or the courts of the jurisdiction in which the land is situated. 1995See, e.g., Eaton v. McCall, 86 Me. 346, 350 , 29 A. 1103 (1894) (“[Ojrdinarily we think that the holder of a mortgage should be required to resort to the remedies or the courts of the jurisdiction in which the land is situated. | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.green2 sentences1988See Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 471 A.2d 280, 284 (Me.1984). 1988See Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 471 A.2d 280, 284 (Me.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Letellier v. Small
green
2 sentences2019See Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc., 578 A.2d 187, 188-89 (Me. 1990); Arbour v. Hazelton, 534 A.2d 1303, 1305 (Me. 1987); Letellier v. Small, 400 A.2d 371 , 376 n.3 (Me. 1979). 2019See Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc. , 578 A.2d 187 , 188-89 (Me. 1990) ; Arbour v. Hazelton , 534 A.2d 1303 , 1305 (Me. 1987) ; Letellier v. Small , 400 A.2d 371 , 376 n.3 (Me. 1979). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders
green
2 sentences2020LEXIS 151671 , at *15. [¶24] In recent years, however, our decisions on the transfer of mortgages have substantially departed from the foregoing precedent and the corresponding modern Restatement rule. [¶25] In Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, we concluded that the mortgage in question—identical to the mortgage in this case—“granted to MERS ‘only the right to record the mortgage.’” 2014 ME 89 , ¶ 14, 96 A.3d 700 (quoting Saunders, 2010 ME 79 , ¶ 11 n.3, 2 A.3d 289 ). 2020LEXIS 151671 , at *15. [¶24] In recent years, however, our decisions on the transfer of mortgages have substantially departed from the foregoing precedent and the corresponding modern Restatement rule. [¶25] In Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, we concluded that the mortgage in question—identical to the mortgage in this case—“granted to MERS ‘only the right to record the mortgage.’” 2014 ME 89 , ¶ 14, 96 A.3d 700 (quoting Saunders, 2010 ME 79 , ¶ 11 n.3, 2 A.3d 289 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bank of American, N.A. v. Scott A. Greenleaf
green
2 sentences2020LEXIS 151671 , at *15. [¶24] In recent years, however, our decisions on the transfer of mortgages have substantially departed from the foregoing precedent and the corresponding modern Restatement rule. [¶25] In Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, we concluded that the mortgage in question—identical to the mortgage in this case—“granted to MERS ‘only the right to record the mortgage.’” 2014 ME 89 , ¶ 14, 96 A.3d 700 (quoting Saunders, 2010 ME 79 , ¶ 11 n.3, 2 A.3d 289 ). 2020LEXIS 151671 , at *15. [¶24] In recent years, however, our decisions on the transfer of mortgages have substantially departed from the foregoing precedent and the corresponding modern Restatement rule. [¶25] In Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, we concluded that the mortgage in question—identical to the mortgage in this case—“granted to MERS ‘only the right to record the mortgage.’” 2014 ME 89 , ¶ 14, 96 A.3d 700 (quoting Saunders, 2010 ME 79 , ¶ 11 n.3, 2 A.3d 289 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Beaulieu v. Beaulieu
green
1 sentence2019See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 302(2) (1971) (law of state of incorporation governs determination of a corporation's liabilities unless some other state has a more significant relationship); Beaulieu v. Beaulieu, 265 A.2d 610 (Me. 1970) (adopting Second Restatement's rule). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Coca-Cola International Corp. v. New York Trust Co.
neutral
2 sentences1967The Restatement rule followed in Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (1945), 175 Or. 585 , 155 P.2d 293 [5-15], 296; and Coca-Cola International Corporation v. New York Trust Co. (1939), 24 Del.Ch. 163 , 8 A.2d 511 [15], 524. 1967The Restatement rule followed in Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (1945), 175 Or. 585 , 155 P.2d 293 [5-15], 296; and Coca-Cola International Corporation v. New York Trust Co. (1939), 24 Del.Ch. 163 , 8 A.2d 511 [15], 524. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences1967The Restatement rule followed in Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (1945), 175 Or. 585 , 155 P.2d 293 [5-15], 296; and Coca-Cola International Corporation v. New York Trust Co. (1939), 24 Del.Ch. 163 , 8 A.2d 511 [15], 524. 1967The Restatement rule followed in Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (1945), 175 Or. 585 , 155 P.2d 293 [5-15], 296; and Coca-Cola International Corporation v. New York Trust Co. (1939), 24 Del.Ch. 163 , 8 A.2d 511 [15], 524. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Inhabitants of Portland v. Inhabitants of Bangor
neutral
1 sentence1955Portland v. Bangor, 42 Maine 403, 410 ; Bishop v. Herman, before cited.” For a restatement of the rule see Fort Fairfield v. Millinocket, 136 Me. 426 , 12 A. (2nd) 173 (1940). | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Inhabitants of Fort Fairfield v. Inhabitants of Millinocket
neutral
1 sentence1955Portland v. Bangor, 42 Maine 403, 410 ; Bishop v. Herman, before cited.” For a restatement of the rule see Fort Fairfield v. Millinocket, 136 Me. 426 , 12 A. (2nd) 173 (1940). | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.