justiciable controversy claim in Maine

2018See Smith v. Allstate Insurance Co., 48.3 A.2d .344, .346 (Me. 1984) (a justiciable controversy is defined as "a claim of right, buttressed by a sufficiently substantial interest to warrant judicial intervention") ( quoting Berry v. Daigle, .322 A.2d .320, .326 (Me. 1974)) See also Connors v. International Harvester Credit Corp., 447 A.2d 822, 824 (Me. 1982) ("A justiciable controversy is a claim of present 1 Rule SOB of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure furnishes an example of a prescribed procedure that limits the availability of a declaratory judgment action.

2012No. 43, 1999 ME 143 , <J[ 12, 738 A.2d 1239 (quoting Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1379 (Me. 1996)); see also Roop v. City of Belfast, 2008 ME 103 , <J[ 3, 953 A.2d 374 (noting that a "real and substantial controversy" is one "that may be resolved through a judgment of the court."). '"A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.' A decision issued on a non- justiciable controversy is an advisory opinion, which [the court

2012“A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.” Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32, ¶ 87 , 17 A.3d 640 (quotation marks omitted); see also Berry v. Daigle, 322 A.2d 320, 325-26 (Me.1974) (same in context of a declaratory judgment action).

2012“A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.” Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32, ¶ 87 , 17 A.3d 640 (quotation marks omitted); see also Berry v. Daigle, 322 A.2d 320, 325-26 (Me.1974) (same in context of a declaratory judgment action).

2018See SOLD, Inc. v. Town ef Gorham, 2005 ME 24, 1 [ 1[ 15-16, 868 A.2d 172 (developer's declaratory judgment action challenging municipal ordinance dismissed as untimely because it was commenced after the expiration of the Rule SOB deadline for appeal). 8 and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.") Although the Declaratory Judgments Act would not confer jurisdiction in the absence of a justiciable controversy, "the declaratory judgment law may be used for certain anticipatory challenges to app

2018See SOLD, Inc. v. Town ef Gorham, 2005 ME 24, 1 [ 1[ 15-16, 868 A.2d 172 (developer's declaratory judgment action challenging municipal ordinance dismissed as untimely because it was commenced after the expiration of the Rule SOB deadline for appeal). 8 and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.") Although the Declaratory Judgments Act would not confer jurisdiction in the absence of a justiciable controversy, "the declaratory judgment law may be used for certain anticipatory challenges to app

2012“A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.” Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32, ¶ 87 , 17 A.3d 640 (quotation marks omitted); see also Berry v. Daigle, 322 A.2d 320, 325-26 (Me.1974) (same in context of a declaratory judgment action).

2012No. 43, 1999 ME 143 , <J[ 12, 738 A.2d 1239 (quoting Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1379 (Me. 1996)); see also Roop v. City of Belfast, 2008 ME 103 , <J[ 3, 953 A.2d 374 (noting that a "real and substantial controversy" is one "that may be resolved through a judgment of the court."). '"A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.' A decision issued on a non- justiciable controversy is an advisory opinion, which [the court

2012No. 43, 1999 ME 143 , <J[ 12, 738 A.2d 1239 (quoting Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1379 (Me. 1996)); see also Roop v. City of Belfast, 2008 ME 103 , <J[ 3, 953 A.2d 374 (noting that a "real and substantial controversy" is one "that may be resolved through a judgment of the court."). '"A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.' A decision issued on a non- justiciable controversy is an advisory opinion, which [the court

2012No. 43, 1999 ME 143 , <J[ 12, 738 A.2d 1239 (quoting Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1379 (Me. 1996)); see also Roop v. City of Belfast, 2008 ME 103 , <J[ 3, 953 A.2d 374 (noting that a "real and substantial controversy" is one "that may be resolved through a judgment of the court."). '"A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.' A decision issued on a non- justiciable controversy is an advisory opinion, which [the court

2004“A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights.” Maine Civil Liberties Union v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 121 , 9 8, 734 A.2d 191, 194 (citation and internal punctuation omitted).

2004“A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights.” Maine Civil Liberties Union v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 121 , 9 8, 734 A.2d 191, 194 (citation and internal punctuation omitted).

1999“If issues become moot, an appeal is nonjusticiable.” Sordyl v. Sordyl, 1997 ME 87, ¶ 4 , 692 A.2d 1386, 1387 (citation omitted).

1999“If issues become moot, an appeal is nonjusticiable.” Sordyl v. Sordyl, 1997 ME 87, ¶ 4 , 692 A.2d 1386, 1387 (citation omitted).

1999See Campaign for Sensible Transp. v. Maine Turnpike Auth., 658 A.2d 213, 215 (Me.1995). “ ‘A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.’ ” Id. (quoting Connors v. International Harvester Credit Corp., 447 A.2d 822, 824 (Me.1982)).

1999See Campaign for Sensible Transp. v. Maine Turnpike Auth., 658 A.2d 213, 215 (Me.1995). “ ‘A justiciable controversy is a claim of present and fixed rights, as opposed to hypothetical or future rights, asserted by one party against another who has an interest in contesting the claim.’ ” Id. (quoting Connors v. International Harvester Credit Corp., 447 A.2d 822, 824 (Me.1982)).

1990Dealers Ass’n v. Tierney, 425 A.2d 187, 189 (Me.1981); Bancroft & Martin, Inc. v. Local No. 340, Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, 412 A.2d 1216, 1217 (Me.1980).

1990Dealers Ass’n v. Tierney, 425 A.2d 187, 189 (Me.1981); Bancroft & Martin, Inc. v. Local No. 340, Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, 412 A.2d 1216, 1217 (Me.1980).