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.
8 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Aponte v. Calderongreen1 sentence2022See Aponte v. Calderon, 284 F.3d 184, 190 (1st Cir. 2002) (“[N]otice [of consolidation] must be given sufficiently early to allow the parties time to assemble and present their evidence.”); accord 2 As we have previously noted, it is appropriate for us to consider case law and commentaries on federal rules of civil procedure that are functionally equivalent to Maine’s rules of civil procedure. | 1 | 1 |
Alex John, Jr. v. State of Louisiana (Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities)green1 sentence2022John v. Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698, 704 (5th Cir. 1985); accord Caribbean Produce Exch. | 1 | 1 |
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Third Dimension (3d) Semiconductor, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Third Dimension (3D) Semiconductor, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 63, 67 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Northwest Bypass Group v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineersgreen1 sentence2014Northwest Bypass Grp. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 453 F. Supp. 2d 333, 338-39 (D.N.H. 2006) (denying motion for TRO in part because the construction which was the subject of the motion would not reach sensitive environmental and historic areas before a preliminary injunction hearing could be held). | 1 | 1 |
Hoffman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997Thus, by the time of the preliminary injunction hearing it would have been reasonable for Richard to apprehend that his- submission of the accounting “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a ... crime.” 5 Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 , 71 S.Ct. at 818 (citation omitted). 1997Thus, by the time of the preliminary injunction hearing it would have been reasonable for Richard to apprehend that his- submission of the accounting “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a ... crime.” 5 Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486 , 71 S.Ct. at 818 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc.green1 sentence1997See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 , 103 S.Ct. 1548, 1552 , 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983) (defendant in a contempt proceeding cannot raise for first time a defense that could have been raised during prior enforcement proceeding); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (whether defendant was properly precluded from raising Fifth Amendment claim in contempt proceedings turns on whether the claim could have been properly litigated earlier); S.E.C. v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., 794 F.Supp. 104, 108 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (defendants cannot' raise a Fifth Amend | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bodwellgreen1 sentence1997See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 , 103 S.Ct. 1548, 1552 , 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983) (defendant in a contempt proceeding cannot raise for first time a defense that could have been raised during prior enforcement proceeding); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (whether defendant was properly precluded from raising Fifth Amendment claim in contempt proceedings turns on whether the claim could have been properly litigated earlier); S.E.C. v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., 794 F.Supp. 104, 108 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (defendants cannot' raise a Fifth Amend | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rylandergreen2 sentences1997See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 , 103 S.Ct. 1548, 1552 , 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983) (defendant in a contempt proceeding cannot raise for first time a defense that could have been raised during prior enforcement proceeding); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (whether defendant was properly precluded from raising Fifth Amendment claim in contempt proceedings turns on whether the claim could have been properly litigated earlier); S.E.C. v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., 794 F.Supp. 104, 108 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (defendants cannot' raise a Fifth Amend 1997See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 , 103 S.Ct. 1548, 1552 , 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983) (defendant in a contempt proceeding cannot raise for first time a defense that could have been raised during prior enforcement proceeding); United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (whether defendant was properly precluded from raising Fifth Amendment claim in contempt proceedings turns on whether the claim could have been properly litigated earlier); S.E.C. v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., 794 F.Supp. 104, 108 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (defendants cannot' raise a Fifth Amend | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
T. M. T. Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Union De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico, Local 901
green
1 sentence2022Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Union de Tronquistas, Loc. 901, 453 F.2d 1171 , 1172 (1st Cir. 1971) (reversing dismissal of a complaint after a preliminary injunction hearing for lack of a clear consolidation order). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham
green
2 sentences2022Black responds that the purpose of Count 1 was to seek “a declaratory judgment that signing the 2014 and 2020 leases without first obtaining a two-thirds vote of each House violated Article IX, Section 23 and was therefore ultra vires.” Neither argument is wrong, and our decision in Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham helps explain why. 2005 ME 24 , 868 A.2d 172 . 16 [¶23] In Sold, seven subdivision developers brought a declaratory judgment action—not a Rule 80B appeal—challenging certain impact fee requirements in the conditional approvals the town planning board had granted. 2022Black responds that the purpose of Count 1 was to seek “a declaratory judgment that signing the 2014 and 2020 leases without first obtaining a two-thirds vote of each House violated Article IX, Section 23 and was therefore ultra vires.” Neither argument is wrong, and our decision in Sold, Inc. v. Town of Gorham helps explain why. 2005 ME 24 , 868 A.2d 172 . 16 [¶23] In Sold, seven subdivision developers brought a declaratory judgment action—not a Rule 80B appeal—challenging certain impact fee requirements in the conditional approvals the town planning board had granted. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fair Elections Portland, Inc. v. City of Portland
green
2 sentences2022The Bureau and CMP maintained, in their motions to dismiss Black’s ultra vires claim in Count 1 and the injunction claim in Count 2 of the first amended complaint, that jurisdiction exists solely under Rule 80C, and they repeat the argument here, citing to our decision in Fair Elections Portland v. City of Portland, 2021 ME 32, ¶¶ 19 , 21 n.7, 252 A.3d 504—precedent in which we approved the dismissal of independent claims as duplicative of a Rule 80B appeal. 2022The Bureau and CMP maintained, in their motions to dismiss Black’s ultra vires claim in Count 1 and the injunction claim in Count 2 of the first amended complaint, that jurisdiction exists solely under Rule 80C, and they repeat the argument here, citing to our decision in Fair Elections Portland v. City of Portland, 2021 ME 32, ¶¶ 19 , 21 n.7, 252 A.3d 504—precedent in which we approved the dismissal of independent claims as duplicative of a Rule 80B appeal. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Spickler v. Key Bank of Southern Maine
green
1 sentence2020An injunction will not bar Plaintiff from bringing meritorious claims, rather, the injunction "establishes a screening mechanism whereby any future complaints by the [plaintiff] will be examined to protect the defendants and their agents from baseless claims." Id. 3 of6 conduct that a Spickler order is intended to address. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono
green
1 sentence2002Ingraham, 441 A.2d at 693 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pang-Tsu Mow v. Republic of China (Two Cases)
green
1 sentence1978Reconciliation of the Rule with the statute requires that the former be not construed so as to supplant the exception. 91 U.S.App.D.C. at 326, 201 F.2d at 197 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.