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.
7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pepperman v. Town of Rangeleygreen2 sentences2010Id. ¶ 10, 763 A.2d at 1161-62 ; see also Pepperman, 659 A.2d at 288 . [¶ 17] Similarly, in this case, to the extent that the Board’s decision can be treated as providing an interpretation of provisions of the zoning ordinance, the only legal significance. of that decision is to provide an advisory opinion on the issue of whether the CEO’s violation determination was correct. 2001Cf. Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley, 659 A.2d 280 (Me.1995) (holding that the ZBA’s role in appeal from CEO’s violation determination was advisory in nature and not subject to judicial review when the ordinance only authorized the ZBA to recommend that the CEO reconsider her violation determination). | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Farrell v. City of Auburn
green
2 sentences2018More recently, in Farrell v. City ofAuburn, 2010 ME 88 , 3 A.3d 385 , the Law Court again applied the rule laid out in Herrle and held: [T]o the extent that the Board's decision can be treated as providing an interpretation of provisions ofthe zoning ordinance, the only legal significance ofthat decision is to provide an advisory opinion on the issue of whether the CEO's violation determination was correct. 2018More recently, in Farrell v. City ofAuburn, 2010 ME 88 , 3 A.3d 385 , the Law Court again applied the rule laid out in Herrle and held: [T]o the extent that the Board's decision can be treated as providing an interpretation of provisions ofthe zoning ordinance, the only legal significance ofthat decision is to provide an advisory opinion on the issue of whether the CEO's violation determination was correct. | 4 | 2010–2019 |
Eliot Shores, LLC v. Town of Eliot
green
2 sentences2019Farrell , 2010 ME 88 , ¶ 17, 3 A.3d 385 ; Shores , 2010 ME 129 , ¶ 10, 9 A.3d 806 . 2019Farrell , 2010 ME 88 , ¶ 17, 3 A.3d 385 ; Shores , 2010 ME 129 , ¶ 10, 9 A.3d 806 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Herrle v. Town of Waterboro
green
2 sentences2010In Herrle v. Town of Waterboro, we addressed whether a similar provision in the Waterboro Zoning Ordinance rendered a Board decision on appeal from a CEO’s violation determination subject to judicial review. 2001 ME 1, ¶¶ 8-10 , 763 A.2d at 1160-62 . 2010In Herrle v. Town of Waterboro, we addressed whether a similar provision in the Waterboro Zoning Ordinance rendered a Board decision on appeal from a CEO’s violation determination subject to judicial review. 2001 ME 1, ¶¶ 8-10 , 763 A.2d at 1160-62 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.