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.
10 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dehahn v. Innesgreen1 sentence2018Dehahn, 356 A.2d at 718 (holding that "the salutary principle embodied in [the U.C.C.'s judicial admission exception] applicable to a contract for the sale of goods alone should apply 5 ) I ' equally to [a] contract involving both goods and real estate"); Douglas v. Snow, 77 Me. 91, 93 (1885) (defendants "having admitted [a land sale] agreement valid at common law, and thereby avoided the mischief against which the statute [of frauds] was directed, no evidence of its terms is necessary"). | 1 | 1 |
Douglass v. Snowgreen1 sentence2018Dehahn, 356 A.2d at 718 (holding that "the salutary principle embodied in [the U.C.C.'s judicial admission exception] applicable to a contract for the sale of goods alone should apply 5 ) I ' equally to [a] contract involving both goods and real estate"); Douglas v. Snow, 77 Me. 91, 93 (1885) (defendants "having admitted [a land sale] agreement valid at common law, and thereby avoided the mischief against which the statute [of frauds] was directed, no evidence of its terms is necessary"). | 1 | 1 |
Blance v. Alleygreen1 sentence1981Blance v. Alley, Me., 404 A.2d 587, 589 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Howland v. Blakegreen1 sentence1915See paragraph 1, page 627, Howland v. Blake, supra. Finally may be cited the principle found in this case on page 626, as a salutary rule for the government of this class of cases: “In each case the burden rests upon the moving party of overcoming the strong presumption arising from the terms of a written instrument. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wong v. Hawk
green
2 sentences2017Teele’s interpretation of section 2107 therefore runs contrary to the salutary principle of statutory construction that “[w]ords in a statute must be given meaning and not treated as meaningless and superfluous.” Wong, 2012 ME 125, ¶ 8 , 55 A.3d 425 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 13] We therefore conclude that the court did not err by determining that a credit for dependent benefits applies only “to the extent it is identified” in the child support order applicable to the period of benefit entitlement. 2017Teele’s interpretation of section 2107 therefore runs contrary to the salutary principle of statutory construction that “[w]ords in a statute must be given meaning and not treated as meaningless and superfluous.” Wong, 2012 ME 125, ¶ 8 , 55 A.3d 425 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 13] We therefore conclude that the court did not err by determining that a credit for dependent benefits applies only “to the extent it is identified” in the child support order applicable to the period of benefit entitlement. | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Flaherty v. Helfont
green
2 sentences1982Indeed, it is clear to us that until Burke and Hurd our cases which addressed this issue since our 1923 decision in Flaherty v. Helfont, 123 Me. 134 , 122 A. 180 , had consistently recognized this salutary doctrine and had refused in tort actions to impose the limitations which had developed to limit consensual obligations. 1982Indeed, it is clear to us that until Burke and Hurd our cases which addressed this issue since our 1923 decision in Flaherty v. Helfont, 123 Me. 134 , 122 A. 180 , had consistently recognized this salutary doctrine and had refused in tort actions to impose the limitations which had developed to limit consensual obligations. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Gregware v. Poliquin
green
1 sentence1937The rule is definitely stated in Gregware v. Poliquin, supra: “This Court has repeatedly called attention to the settled and salutary rule that an automobile driver is bound to use his eyes and to see seasonably that which is open and apparent, and govern himself suitably. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Sinking-Fund Cases
green
1 sentence1913The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.” 99 U. S., 700 , 25 L. ed., 496, Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 678 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Powell v. Pennsylvania
green
1 sentence1913The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.” 99 U. S., 700 , 25 L. ed., 496, Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 678 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.