11 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardnerred2 sentences1998Because this principle applies to appeals to agency rulemaking pursuant to section 8058, we conclude that the Superior Court did not err when it applied the doctrine of ripeness to the AFL-CIO’s claims. 3 [¶8] To determine if an issue is ripe for review, the court focuses on “the *636 fitness of the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Maine Public Serv., 490 A.2d at 1221 (quoting Abbott Lab., 387 U.S. at 149 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 ). 1998Because this principle applies to appeals to agency rulemaking pursuant to section 8058, we conclude that the Superior Court did not err when it applied the doctrine of ripeness to the AFL-CIO’s claims. 3 [¶8] To determine if an issue is ripe for review, the court focuses on “the *636 fitness of the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Maine Public Serv., 490 A.2d at 1221 (quoting Abbott Lab., 387 U.S. at 149 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 ). | 1 | 4 |
William Clark v. Hancock County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2019See Clark, 2014 ME 33 , ~ii 19~20, 87 A.3d 712 . 2019See Clark, 2014 ME 33 , ~ii 19~20, 87 A.3d 712 . | 1 | 1 |
Lever Bros. v. Federal Trade Commissiongreen1 sentence1983See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 , 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); Lever Brothers Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 325 F.Supp. 371, 373 (S.D.Me.1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patrons Oxford Mutual Insurance v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2022A ripeness analysis involves two principal points offocus: the fitness of the issue for judicial decision, and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration." Patrons Oxford Mut. v. Garcia, 1998 ME 38 ,, 4, 707 A.2d 384 . 2022A ripeness analysis involves two principal points offocus: the fitness of the issue for judicial decision, and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration." Patrons Oxford Mut. v. Garcia, 1998 ME 38 ,, 4, 707 A.2d 384 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lehigh v. Pittston Co.
green
1 sentence2019As we observed in Lehigh v. Pittston Co., tension exists between the preventive-remedial doctrine of standing, which encourages anticipatory challenges, and the doctrine of ripeness, “which mandates restraint.” 456 A.2d 355 , 358 n.11 (Me. 1983). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Waterville Industries, Inc. v. Finance Authority
green
2 sentences2016Auth. of Me., 2000 ME 138 , CJI 22, 758 A.2d 986 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 2016Auth. of Me., 2000 ME 138 , CJI 22, 758 A.2d 986 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Marquis v. Town of Kennebunk
green
2 sentences2013The ripeness doctrine prevents 'judicial entang·Jement in abstract disputes" and avoids "prematm-e adjudication." Marquis v. Town r.if Kennebuuk, 2011 ME 128 , ~ 18, 36 A.sd 861 (quotation marks omitted). 2013"For a case to be ripe there must be a gemune controversy and a concrete, certain, and immediate legal problem." See id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Maine AFL-CIO v. Superintendent of Insurance
green
2 sentences2006AFL-CIO v. Superintendent of Ins., 1998 ME 257, ¶ 7 , 721 A.2d 633, 635 . [¶ 8] With regard to ripeness, we focus both on the fitness of the issue for judicial review and any hardship caused to the parties from the withholding of adjudication. 2006AFL-CIO v. Superintendent of Ins., 1998 ME 257, ¶ 7 , 721 A.2d 633, 635 . [¶ 8] With regard to ripeness, we focus both on the fitness of the issue for judicial review and any hardship caused to the parties from the withholding of adjudication. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Town of Boothbay v. Jenness
green
2 sentences2004Town of Boothbay v. Jenness, 2003 ME 50 , ¶ 20 n. 4, 822 A.2d 1169, 1175 . [¶ 16] The ripeness doctrine precludes a court, when asked to intervene in *1165 the actions of an administrative body, from doing so unless the matter has achieved, through the administrative tribunal, a stage at which it is ripe for judicial consideration. 2004Town of Boothbay v. Jenness, 2003 ME 50 , ¶ 20 n. 4, 822 A.2d 1169, 1175 . [¶ 16] The ripeness doctrine precludes a court, when asked to intervene in *1165 the actions of an administrative body, from doing so unless the matter has achieved, through the administrative tribunal, a stage at which it is ripe for judicial consideration. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Maine Public Service Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
green
1 sentence1998Because this principle applies to appeals to agency rulemaking pursuant to section 8058, we conclude that the Superior Court did not err when it applied the doctrine of ripeness to the AFL-CIO’s claims. 3 [¶8] To determine if an issue is ripe for review, the court focuses on “the *636 fitness of the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Maine Public Serv., 490 A.2d at 1221 (quoting Abbott Lab., 387 U.S. at 149 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.