nuisance claim in Maine

2018"We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo to determine if any reasonable view of the evidence and those inferences that are justifiably drawn from that evidence supports the jury verdict." Darling's Auto Mall v. General Motors LLC , 2016 ME 48 , ¶ 11, 135 A.3d 819 (quotation marks omitted).

2018"We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo to determine if any reasonable view of the evidence and those inferences that are justifiably drawn from that evidence supports the jury verdict." Darling's Auto Mall v. General Motors LLC , 2016 ME 48 , ¶ 11, 135 A.3d 819 (quotation marks omitted).

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

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

2025Cf. Fox Islands Wind Neighbors v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 2015 ME 53, ¶¶ 11-20 , 116 A.3d 940 (concluding that an agency’s compliance conclusion was a reviewable aspect of an enforcement action); 29 McKown LLC v. Town of Boothbay Harbor, 2022 ME 38 , ¶ 7 n.4, 277 A.3d 364 (“[A] regulatory decision finding that original permitting standards were not violated is itself an enforcement action that is judicially reviewable.” (citing Fox Islands, 2015 ME 53, ¶¶ 5, 17, 19-20 , 116 A.3d 940 )). 15 BOA finding cannot be collaterally attacked.

2025Cf. Fox Islands Wind Neighbors v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 2015 ME 53, ¶¶ 11-20 , 116 A.3d 940 (concluding that an agency’s compliance conclusion was a reviewable aspect of an enforcement action); 29 McKown LLC v. Town of Boothbay Harbor, 2022 ME 38 , ¶ 7 n.4, 277 A.3d 364 (“[A] regulatory decision finding that original permitting standards were not violated is itself an enforcement action that is judicially reviewable.” (citing Fox Islands, 2015 ME 53, ¶¶ 5, 17, 19-20 , 116 A.3d 940 )). 15 BOA finding cannot be collaterally attacked.

2019West v. Jewett & Noonan Transp., Inc., 2018 ME 98 , 'l[ 14, 189 A.3d 277 (alteration in original).

2019West v. Jewett & Noonan Transp., Inc., 2018 ME 98 , 'l[ 14, 189 A.3d 277 (alteration in original).

2010Energy Recovery Co., 2010 ME 52 , ~ 10 (quoting Halco v. Davey, 2007 ME 48 , ~ 6, 919 A. 2d 626, 629 ). 2 STATUTORY CLAIM The plaintiff, in order to prevail on a nuisance claim, must prove under 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 2 that (1) he was "injured in his comfort, property, or the enjoyment of his estate," (2) by a common and public or a private nuisance." Johnston, 2010 ME 52 , 'I! 14.

2010Energy Recovery Co., 2010 ME 52 , ~ 10 (quoting Halco v. Davey, 2007 ME 48 , ~ 6, 919 A. 2d 626, 629 ). 2 STATUTORY CLAIM The plaintiff, in order to prevail on a nuisance claim, must prove under 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 2 that (1) he was "injured in his comfort, property, or the enjoyment of his estate," (2) by a common and public or a private nuisance." Johnston, 2010 ME 52 , 'I! 14.

2010Energy Recovery Co., 2010 ME 52 , ~ 10 (quoting Halco v. Davey, 2007 ME 48 , ~ 6, 919 A. 2d 626, 629 ). 2 STATUTORY CLAIM The plaintiff, in order to prevail on a nuisance claim, must prove under 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 2 that (1) he was "injured in his comfort, property, or the enjoyment of his estate," (2) by a common and public or a private nuisance." Johnston, 2010 ME 52 , 'I! 14.

2010Energy Recovery Co., 2010 ME 52 , ~ 10 (quoting Halco v. Davey, 2007 ME 48 , ~ 6, 919 A. 2d 626, 629 ). 2 STATUTORY CLAIM The plaintiff, in order to prevail on a nuisance claim, must prove under 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 2 that (1) he was "injured in his comfort, property, or the enjoyment of his estate," (2) by a common and public or a private nuisance." Johnston, 2010 ME 52 , 'I! 14.

2006Id. 9I9I 25-27, 974 A.2d at 310-11 .

2006Id. 9I9I 25-27, 974 A.2d at 310-11 .

1980No “governmental rule” or “regulation” is suggested to us, nor are we aware of any applicable here. *228 Travelers relies on Marston’s holding that a violation-of-law exclusion 5 was sufficient to require a denial of coverage. 319 A.2d at 114 .

1951In the case Baltimore v. Warren Manufacturing Co., 59 Maryland 96 , cited by the plaintiff, an injunction was granted to the city to restrain the defendant, an upper riparian proprietor, from defiling the stream on which the city was a lower riparian proprietor, and from which stream the city took water for public distribution.