chief test in Maine

7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2001 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Bobbgreen me · 1942 · cited in 3 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1951–1962 2 sentences 1962If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.’ Charlesworth v. Express Co., 117 Me. 219, 221 , see also State v. Bobb, 138 Me. 242 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me. 207 .” State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 . 1959If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Charlesworth v. Express Co., 117 Me. 219, 221 ; see also State v. Bobb, 138 Me. 242 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me. 207 ; State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 ; 78 A. (2nd) 496.	1	3
Marston v. Dingleygreen · 1896 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 1 sentence 1959See Marston v. Dingley, 88 Me. 546 ; Augusta Water District v. Augusta Water Company, supra; McDonough v. Blossom, 109 Me. 141, 145 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Company, 133 Me. 207 ; First Auburn Trust Company v. Baker, supra; American Oil Company v. Carlisle, supra, and State v. Hume, supra. Careful examination of the record convinces us that there was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hume green me · 1951 2 sentences 2001State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129 , 78 A.2d 496 (1951). 2001State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129 , 78 A.2d 496 (1951).	4	1959–2001
Charlesworth v. American Express Co. green me · 1918 2 sentences 1962If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.’ Charlesworth v. Express Co., 117 Me. 219, 221 , see also State v. Bobb, 138 Me. 242 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me. 207 .” State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 . 1959If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Charlesworth v. Express Co., 117 Me. 219, 221 ; see also State v. Bobb, 138 Me. 242 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me. 207 ; State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 ; 78 A. (2nd) 496.	4	1943–1962
Bourisk v. Mohican Co. neutral me · 1934 2 sentences 1962If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.’ Charlesworth v. Express Co., 117 Me. 219, 221 , see also State v. Bobb, 138 Me. 242 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me. 207 .” State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 . 1959If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Charlesworth v. Express Co., 117 Me. 219, 221 ; see also State v. Bobb, 138 Me. 242 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me. 207 ; State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 ; 78 A. (2nd) 496.	4	1943–1962
In Re Wagner's Petition green me · 1959 2 sentences 1966If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Wagner, Petr. from decision Judge of Probate, 155 Me. 257 , 153 A.2d 619 ; State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 , 78 A.2d 496 ; Lebel v. Cyr, 140 Me. 98, 102 , 34 A.2d 201 . 1966If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Wagner, Petr. from decision Judge of Probate, 155 Me. 257 , 153 A.2d 619 ; State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 , 78 A.2d 496 ; Lebel v. Cyr, 140 Me. 98, 102 , 34 A.2d 201 .	1	1966–1966
Lebel v. Cyr neutral me · 1943 2 sentences 1966If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Wagner, Petr. from decision Judge of Probate, 155 Me. 257 , 153 A.2d 619 ; State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 , 78 A.2d 496 ; Lebel v. Cyr, 140 Me. 98, 102 , 34 A.2d 201 . 1966If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Wagner, Petr. from decision Judge of Probate, 155 Me. 257 , 153 A.2d 619 ; State v. Hume, 146 Me. 129, 134 , 78 A.2d 496 ; Lebel v. Cyr, 140 Me. 98, 102 , 34 A.2d 201 .	1	1966–1966
Fitch v. Sidelinger neutral me · 1901 1 sentence 1962Fitch v. Sidelinger, 96 Me. 70, 71 . ‘The chief test as to what is or is not a proper exercise of judicial discretion is whether in a given case it is in furtherance of justice.	1	1962–1962
United States v. Whitlow green dcd · 1953 2 sentences 1961If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion. * * " In United States v. Whitlow, D.C., 110 F.Supp. 871 , 872 the Court commented: "Ordinarily a defendant in a criminal case has the privilege, granted to him by the above-mentioned clause of the Constitution, of securing a verdict from the jury originally impaneled and sworn to try him. 1961*If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.---” In U. S. v. Whitlow, 110 F. Supp. 871 , 872 the Court commented: “Ordinarily a defendant in a criminal case has the privilege, granted to him by the above-mentioned clause of the Constitution of securing a verdict from the jury originally impaneled and sworn to try him.	1	1961–1961
McDonough v. Blossom green me · 1912 1 sentence 1959See Marston v. Dingley, 88 Me. 546 ; Augusta Water District v. Augusta Water Company, supra; McDonough v. Blossom, 109 Me. 141, 145 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Company, 133 Me. 207 ; First Auburn Trust Company v. Baker, supra; American Oil Company v. Carlisle, supra, and State v. Hume, supra. Careful examination of the record convinces us that there was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.	1	1959–1959
First Auburn Trust Co. v. Estate of Baker neutral me · 1936 1 sentence 1959See Marston v. Dingley, 88 Me. 546 ; Augusta Water District v. Augusta Water Company, supra; McDonough v. Blossom, 109 Me. 141, 145 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Company, 133 Me. 207 ; First Auburn Trust Company v. Baker, supra; American Oil Company v. Carlisle, supra, and State v. Hume, supra. Careful examination of the record convinces us that there was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.	1	1959–1959
American Oil Co. v. Carlisle green me · 1949 1 sentence 1959See Marston v. Dingley, 88 Me. 546 ; Augusta Water District v. Augusta Water Company, supra; McDonough v. Blossom, 109 Me. 141, 145 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Company, 133 Me. 207 ; First Auburn Trust Company v. Baker, supra; American Oil Company v. Carlisle, supra, and State v. Hume, supra. Careful examination of the record convinces us that there was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.	1	1959–1959
Hill v. Finnemore green me · 1934 1 sentence 1943If it serves to delay or defeat justice it may well be deemed an abuse of discretion.” Charles-worth v. American Express Company, 117 Me., 219,221, 103 A. 358, 359 ; Hill v. Finnemore, 132 Me., 459, 473, 172 A. 826 ; Bourisk v. Mohican Co., 133 Me., 207,210, 175 A. 345 .	1	1943–1943

Where else courts name it

LA 47 (1975–2025) GA 26 (1943–2020) OH 23 (1914–2022) NY 14 (1886–2001) CA 13 (1908–2022) KY 11 (1985–2026) IN 8 (1983–2017) CO 8 (1931–2026) PA 7 (1926–2020) OK 7 (1957–2023) NC 7 (1950–2018) ME 7 (1943–2001) AL 6 (1966–1989) KS 6 (1916–1999) TX 6 (1931–2020) WA 5 (1953–2026) WV 4 (1924–1993) FL 3 (1932–1998) MS 3 (1870–2001) MT 3 (1927–1998) IL 3 (1967–1984) MI 3 (1973–1983) TN 2 (1963–2008) MN 2 (1982–2015) MO 2 (1912–1976) UT 2 (2017–2019) DC 2 (1943–1993)

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