premise underlying doctrine in Maine

2018The basic premise underlying the doctrine of standing is to "limit access." Id. ,r 7.

2009Standing The basic premise underlying the doctrine of standing is to "limit access to the courts to those best suited to assert a particular claim." Roop v. City of Belfast, 2007 ME 32 , err 7, 915 A.2d 966,968 (quoting Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1380 (Me. 1996)).

2016"The premise underlying this rule is that either the injured party or the tortfeasor will receive a windfall if part of a loss is paid by an independent source, and, as between the injured party and the tortfeasor, the injured party should reap the benefit of the windfall." Potvin v. Seven Elms, Inc., 628 A.2d 115, 116 (Me. 1993). 8.

2003“The premise underlying this rule is that either the injured party or the tortfeasor will receive a windfall if part of a loss is paid by an *1002 independent source, and, as between the injured party and the tortfeasor, the injured party should reap the benefit of the windfall.” Potvin v. Seven Elms, Inc., 628 A.2d 115, 116 (Me.1993). [¶ 21] We agree with the Credit Unions that evidence of other insurance covering the same losses was not admissible on issues of causation and punitive damages.

2009Standing The basic premise underlying the doctrine of standing is to "limit access to the courts to those best suited to assert a particular claim." Roop v. City of Belfast, 2007 ME 32 , err 7, 915 A.2d 966,968 (quoting Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1380 (Me. 1996)).

2007The basic premise underlying the doctrine of standing is to “limit access to the courts to those best suited to assert a particular claim.” Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377, 1380 (Me.1996).

2009In the complaint, the plaintiff "must assert a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation and present a real and substantial controversy touching on the legal relations of parties with adverse legal interests." Franklin Property Trust v. Foresite, Inc., 438 A.2d 218, 220 (Me. 1981). 6 Based on the court's summary of the complaint, none of the allegations give Hamilton, Sr. or Ms. Hamilton any "standing to sue." There is no contention that they obtained a contract with the Bank or any of the other defendants.

2008See Stull v. First American Title Insurance Co., 2000 ME 21 , 745 A. 2d 975,979 ("Litigants normally may not assert the rights of third parties but must demonstrate that they have received some particularized injury in order to have standing to raise their claim.") "The basic premise underlying the doctrine of standing is to limit access to the courts to those best suited to assert a particular claim." Roop v. City of Belfast, 2007 ME 32 , <JI 7, 915 A. 2d 966, 968 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2008See Stull v. First American Title Insurance Co., 2000 ME 21 , 745 A. 2d 975,979 ("Litigants normally may not assert the rights of third parties but must demonstrate that they have received some particularized injury in order to have standing to raise their claim.") "The basic premise underlying the doctrine of standing is to limit access to the courts to those best suited to assert a particular claim." Roop v. City of Belfast, 2007 ME 32 , <JI 7, 915 A. 2d 966, 968 (citation and quotation marks omitted).