bench bar (Maine) · Go Syfert
← Maine issues

bench bar in Maine

7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 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.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Theberge v. Thebergegreen
me · 2010 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

11
Most v. Mostgreen
me · 1984 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

11
Palacci v. Palaccigreen
me · 1992 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

11
State v. O'NEALgreen
me · 1981 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

11
Brown v. Manchestergreen
me · 1978 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

11
Levesque v. Levesquegreen
me · 1997 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

2023See Levesque v. Levesque, 1997 ME 166, ¶ 9 , 697 A.2d 1309 ; State v. O’Neal, 432 A.2d 1278, 1280 (Me. 1981); Palacci v. Palacci, 613 A.2d 951, 953-54 (Me. 1992). [¶18] Rule 59(e) is quite broad and allows the court to alter or amend a judgment to correct an error or “to reach what the revising court deems a more just result.” Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 258 (Me. 1984); see Brown v. Manchester, 384 A.2d 449 , 454 n.5 (Me. 1978) (“Anything which would persuade the judge sitting in a bench hearing to modify a previous judgment is open to his consideration on a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion.”);

11
MacDowall v. MMG Insurancegreen
me · 2007 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023Co., 2007 ME 56, ¶¶ 6, 15 , 920 A.2d 1044 (affirming a court’s amendment of a judgment to include interest and costs pursuant to Rule 59(e)). 9A movant is required to “state with particularity . . . the rule or statute invoked if the motion is brought pursuant to a rule or statute.” M.R.

2023Co., 2007 ME 56, ¶¶ 6, 15 , 920 A.2d 1044 (affirming a court’s amendment of a judgment to include interest and costs pursuant to Rule 59(e)). 9A movant is required to “state with particularity . . . the rule or statute invoked if the motion is brought pursuant to a rule or statute.” M.R.

11
White v. Town of Hollisgreen
me · 1991 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See Duffy v. Town of Berwick, 2013 ME 105 , ~~ 18-21, 82 A.3d 148 (identifying the standard for determining whether a municipal board's decision must be vacated due to ex parte communications); White v. Hollis, 589 A.2d 46, 48 (Me. 1991) (holding pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 2691 parties have the right to cross-examine 7 this action will be repeated, the public concern exception does not apply.

11
Robert Duffy v. Town of Berwickgreen
me · 2013 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017See Duffy v. Town of Berwick, 2013 ME 105 , ~~ 18-21, 82 A.3d 148 (identifying the standard for determining whether a municipal board's decision must be vacated due to ex parte communications); White v. Hollis, 589 A.2d 46, 48 (Me. 1991) (holding pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 2691 parties have the right to cross-examine 7 this action will be repeated, the public concern exception does not apply.

2017See Duffy v. Town of Berwick, 2013 ME 105 , ~~ 18-21, 82 A.3d 148 (identifying the standard for determining whether a municipal board's decision must be vacated due to ex parte communications); White v. Hollis, 589 A.2d 46, 48 (Me. 1991) (holding pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 2691 parties have the right to cross-examine 7 this action will be repeated, the public concern exception does not apply.

11
State v. Baileygreen
me · 1972 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975This, however, does not defeat the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the report since under Rule 37A(a) the “report” jurisdiction of the Law Court is properly invoked as to “any question of law ... of sufficient importance or doubt . . . provided . . . the decision thereof would in at least one alternative result in a final disposition of the action in favor of the defendant.” For the further guidance of the bench and bar we here repeat the content of footnote 4 of State v. Bailey, Me., 286 A.2d 603, 605 (1972) explaining the rationale underlying the proviso in Rule 37A(a) M.R.Crim.P.: "

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State of Maine v. Emanuel J. Sloboda green
me · 2020
1 sentence

2024Cf. id. (addressing a jurisdictional argument raised by amici because the issue could be raised at any time). 5 prejudice any party, and that ruling based on the alternative grounds will serve the interests of judicial economy and provide guidance to the bench and bar, we exercise our discretion to address the merits of this appeal on those alternative grounds.

12024–2024
In Re Walter R. green
me · 2004
2 sentences

2017Moreover, it is unlikely that an authoritative decision would assist "the bench and bar in future cases." ln re Walter R., 2004 ME 77 , ~ 12, 850 A.2d 346 .5 Because it is unlikely that the particular circumstances that gave rise to 5 The Law Court has addressed most of the issues plaintiffs raise in their brief.

2017Moreover, it is unlikely that an authoritative decision would assist "the bench and bar in future cases." ln re Walter R., 2004 ME 77 , ~ 12, 850 A.2d 346 .5 Because it is unlikely that the particular circumstances that gave rise to 5 The Law Court has addressed most of the issues plaintiffs raise in their brief.

12017–2017
Competitive Energy Services LLC v. Public Utilities Commission green
me · 2003
2 sentences

2017Comm’n, 2003 ME 12, ¶ 18 , 818 A.2d 1039 (“[W]e avoid statutory constructions that create absurd, illogical or inconsistent results.” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶25] The approach taken in the stipulation adopts the avoided costs predictions from the bench analysis, which used the LEI forecasts to calculate avoided costs.

2017Comm’n, 2003 ME 12, ¶ 18 , 818 A.2d 1039 (“[W]e avoid statutory constructions that create absurd, illogical or inconsistent results.” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶25] The approach taken in the stipulation adopts the avoided costs predictions from the bench analysis, which used the LEI forecasts to calculate avoided costs.

12017–2017
Stevens v. County Commissioners green
me · 1902
2 sentences

2014Comm’rs, 97 Me. 121, 127 , 53 A. 985 (1902) (denying a request to quash the proceedings of county commissioners due to an improper relationship in part because the appellant’s petition was “entirely silent as to when she made the discovery of the alleged disqualifying relationship”). 5 Second, the trusts’ insistence that they “lacked actual knowledge” contradicts their simultaneous assertion that “[t]he longstanding personal and professional friendship between Justice Cole and retired Justice Crowley — and Justice Crowley’s affiliation with KHZ since his retirement — is well known among the be

2014Comm’rs, 97 Me. 121, 127 , 53 A. 985 (1902) (denying a request to quash the proceedings of county commissioners due to an improper relationship in part because the appellant’s petition was “entirely silent as to when she made the discovery of the alleged disqualifying relationship”). 5 Second, the trusts’ insistence that they “lacked actual knowledge” contradicts their simultaneous assertion that “[t]he longstanding personal and professional friendship between Justice Cole and retired Justice Crowley — and Justice Crowley’s affiliation with KHZ since his retirement — is well known among the be

12014–2014
Cress v. State neutral
me · 1971
1 sentence

1972The form was obviously taken from White-house and Hill, Directions and Forms for *252 Criminal Procedure a text on practice and forms which, while not precedent, has for more than half a century commanded the respect of the bench and bar of the State.” Cress v. State (1971-Me.) 281 A.2d 460, 461 .

11972–1972
State v. Perley green
· 1894
2 sentences

1972An indictment alleging assault in the course of charging robbery was approved without comment upon the assault allegation in State v. Perley (1894) 86 Me. 427 , 30 A. 74 .

1972An indictment alleging assault in the course of charging robbery was approved without comment upon the assault allegation in State v. Perley (1894) 86 Me. 427 , 30 A. 74 .

11972–1972

Where else courts name it

TX 232 (1876–2026) MI 145 (1920–2024) CA 104 (1866–2026) MS 99 (1954–2025) GA 93 (1905–2025) PA 91 (1830–2026) FL 83 (1912–2019) TN 73 (1903–2026) AL 65 (1868–2026) IL 56 (1879–2025) SC 52 (1914–2026) IA 41 (1915–2026) ID 40 (1979–2022) KS 40 (1871–2024) IN 39 (1872–2020) WI 38 (1881–2026) KY 38 (1876–2026) OK 37 (1897–2025) OR 34 (1955–2025) OH 34 (1907–2026) AR 29 (1929–2023) NJ 29 (1954–2021) WV 28 (1960–2022) MD 26 (1895–2019) NY 25 (1888–2022) LA 24 (1946–2024) MO 24 (1890–2018) SD 21 (1910–2022) NC 19 (1898–2020) WA 19 (1962–2025) UT 18 (1930–2020) MT 17 (1920–2022) CT 15 (1939–2026) NV 15 (1943–2021) VA 14 (1907–2026) MN 13 (1890–2010) AZ 13 (1935–2020) WY 12 (1975–2021) DC 9 (1972–2011) AK 8 (1964–2015) NE 8 (1898–2025) ME 7 (1972–2024) CO 7 (1915–2005) NM 7 (1937–2011) RI 7 (1986–2016) ND 5 (1911–1998) VT 3 (1875–1996) PR 3 (1955–1963) MA 3 (1823–1991) NH 2 (1985–1998) DE 2 (1936–1997) HI 2 (1902–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check