given claim (Maine) · Go Syfert
← Maine issues

given claim in Maine

10 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2023 2 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Binette v. Dyer Library Ass'ngreen
me · 1996 · cited in 3 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2018–2019
2 sentences

2019"A plaintiff may avoid a summary judgment for the defendant as a matter of law on a given claim by establishing a prima facie case for each element of the claim for which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at trial." Binette v. Dyer Library Ass'n, 688 A.2d 898, 902 (Me. 1996).

2019"A plaintiff may avoid a summary judgment for the defendant as a matter of law on a given claim by establishing a prima facie case for each element of the claim for which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at trial." Binette v. Dyer Library Ass'n, 688 A.2d 898, 902 (Me. 1996).

33
State v. Ashleygreen
me · 1995 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See State v. Ashley, 666 A.2d 103, 106-07 (Me. 1995) (“Deviation from a representative instruction, where the given instruction fully and accurately informs the jury of the applicable law, is not error, let alone obvious error.”). 11 In future, similar cases, where the evidence of guilt rests primarily upon testimony that is at odds with the defendant’s testimony and the attorneys are discussing motive in closing arguments, courts may wish to give an instruction regarding motive closer in time to an instruction regarding the State’s burden of proof and the defendant’s lack of burden of proof,

11
Rippett v. Bemisgreen
me · 1996 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021To “avoid a judgment as a matter of law for the defendant[] on a given claim, [the plaintiff] must establish a prima facie case for each element of that claim.” Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82, 85 (Me. 1996). 7 Apart from attempting, unsuccessfully, to qualify or dispute Byron’s S.M.F., Prunier offers essentially no admissible evidence to establish that Byron made any statements that were false and defamatory.

11
Dowling v. Salewskigreen
me · 2007 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Dowling v. Salewski, 2007 ME 78, ¶ 10 , 926 A.2d 193 .

2016See Dowling v. Salewski, 2007 ME 78, ¶ 10 , 926 A.2d 193 .

11
Fleming v. Gardnergreen
me · 1995 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me.1995).

11
Spickler v. Greenberggreen
me · 1991 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996Stickler v. Greenberg, 586 A.2d 1232, 1234 (Me.1991). *902 A plaintiff may avoid a summary judgment for the defendant as a matter of law on a given claim by establishing a prima facie case for each element of the claim for which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at the trial.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Drilling & Blasting Rock Specialists, Inc. v. Paul Rheaume green
me · 2016
2 sentences

2019Drilling & Blasting Rock Specialists, Inc. v. Rheaume, 2016 ME 131, ¶ 16 , 147 A.3d 824 .

2019Drilling & Blasting Rock Specialists, Inc. v. Rheaume, 2016 ME 131, ¶ 16 , 147 A.3d 824 .

22019–2019
Alec T. Sabina v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. green
me · 2016
2 sentences

2019Id. [¶8] The determination of “[w]hich [statute of] limitations period applies to a given claim is a matter of statutory construction,” which we also review de novo.

2019Id. [¶8] The determination of "[w]hich [statute of] limitations period applies to a given claim is a matter of statutory construction," which we also review de novo.

22019–2019
Curtis v. Porter green
me · 2001
2 sentences

2019A defendant's motion for summary judgment is properly granted if "the evidence favoring the plaintiff is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law." Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158 , ! 7, 784 A.2d 18 .

2019A defendant's motion for summary judgment is properly granted if "the evidence favoring the plaintiff is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law." Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158 , ! 7, 784 A.2d 18 .

12019–2019
Brawn v. Oral Surgery Associates, P.A. green
me · 2006
1 sentence

2016“When the plaintiff fails to set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial on.a statute- of limitations defense, summary judgment may be granted on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations has run.” Id. [¶16] Which limitations period applies to a given claim is a matter of statutory construction, reviewed de novo.

12016–2016
Pierce v. Rodliff green
· 1901
1 sentence

1942In Pierce v. Rodliff, 95 Me., 346, 50 A., 32 , the Court held that “while the practice of raising questions of law upon a motion is not to be encouraged, in cases where manifest error in law has occurred, and injustice would otherwise inevitably result, the law of the case may be examined upon a motion, and if required, the verdict be set aside as against law,” citing Berry v. Pullen, 69 Me., 101, 31 Am.

11942–1942

Where else courts name it

TX 232 (1948–2025) CA 156 (1909–2026) IL 83 (1890–2024) MI 83 (1970–2026) NM 50 (1914–2026) MO 40 (1907–2024) WV 36 (1981–2026) OR 31 (1921–2024) KY 30 (1912–2025) AZ 30 (1981–2024) FL 28 (1907–2019) MS 26 (1895–2020) WA 24 (1959–2025) GA 23 (1917–2023) WI 23 (1982–2025) IN 23 (1969–2024) PA 22 (1910–2026) NV 18 (1962–2022) MA 18 (1941–2026) OH 15 (1991–2017) NJ 14 (1906–2026) MD 13 (1979–2021) CO 13 (1965–2026) KS 13 (1979–2026) NY 13 (1898–2021) ID 13 (1904–2022) MT 13 (1930–2025) UT 12 (1956–2026) CT 12 (1991–2022) AK 11 (1972–2019) NC 11 (1919–2026) SD 11 (1911–2016) OK 11 (1908–2006) ME 10 (1942–2023) WY 9 (1975–2019) RI 8 (1996–2012) NE 7 (1909–2023) AR 6 (1936–2021) VA 6 (1986–2025) IA 5 (1930–2016) DC 5 (1988–2021) TN 5 (2006–2015) SC 4 (1929–2010) DE 4 (1984–2024) AL 4 (1907–1984) ND 3 (1910–2008) MN 3 (1993–2026) NH 3 (2011–2015) VI 2 (2015–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check