7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green1 sentence2008Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358, 360 (Me.1994); see also Jasch v. The Anchorage Inn, 2002 ME 106, ¶ 10 , 799 A.2d 1216, 1218-19 . | 1 | 1 |
Jasch v. Anchorage Inngreen2 sentences2008Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358, 360 (Me.1994); see also Jasch v. The Anchorage Inn, 2002 ME 106, ¶ 10 , 799 A.2d 1216, 1218-19 . 2008Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358, 360 (Me.1994); see also Jasch v. The Anchorage Inn, 2002 ME 106, ¶ 10 , 799 A.2d 1216, 1218-19 . | 1 | 1 |
Celentano v. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2006"We will not overturn a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer unless it can be said that the Board lacks a rational basis for its application of law to the facts.” Celentano v. Dep’t of Corr., 2005 ME 125, ¶7 , 887 A.2d 512, 514 (quotation marks omitted). .The rule provides: § 1. 2006"We will not overturn a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer unless it can be said that the Board lacks a rational basis for its application of law to the facts.” Celentano v. Dep’t of Corr., 2005 ME 125, ¶7 , 887 A.2d 512, 514 (quotation marks omitted). .The rule provides: § 1. | 1 | 1 |
Dorey v. Forster Manufacturing Co.green1 sentence2005Co., 591 A.2d 240, 241-42 (Me.1991). [¶ 8] The parties agree that the relevant statute in this case is 39-A M.R.S.A. § 201(4). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buckley v. S.D. Warren Co.
green
2 sentences2012Warren Co., 2010 ME 53 , 997 A.2d 747 (“Buckley I”). * Buckley contends that, when determining whether his permanent impairment level is above the threshold for receiving partial incapacity benefits for the duration of his incapacity, the hearing officer (Collier; HO) misinterpreted our mandate by failing to combine or “stack” the percentages of permanent impairment attributable to all of his work injuries. 2012Warren Co., 2010 ME 53 , 997 A.2d 747 (“Buckley I”). * Buckley contends that, when determining whether his permanent impairment level is above the threshold for receiving partial incapacity benefits for the duration of his incapacity, the hearing officer (Collier; HO) misinterpreted our mandate by failing to combine or “stack” the percentages of permanent impairment attributable to all of his work injuries. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lavoie v. Re-Harvest, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2011Importantly, Doughty moved for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 318 (2010); thus, “we do not assume that the Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer made all the necessary findings to support its judgment.” Lavoie v. Re-Harvest, Inc., 2009 ME 50 , ¶ 10 n. 2, 973 A.2d 760 . 2011Importantly, Doughty moved for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 318 (2010); thus, “we do not assume that the Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer made all the necessary findings to support its judgment.” Lavoie v. Re-Harvest, Inc., 2009 ME 50 , ¶ 10 n. 2, 973 A.2d 760 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Maietta v. Town of Scarborough
green
2 sentences2009Maietta v. Town of Scarborough, 2004 ME 97, ¶ 17 , 854 A.2d 223, 228 . 2009Maietta v. Town of Scarborough, 2004 ME 97, ¶ 17 , 854 A.2d 223, 228 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Whether the 5% discount is a standard, schedule or scale identified in section 209(1) After the parties filed briefs in this case, the Law Court rendered its opinion in the combined cases of Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. and Babine v. Bath Iron Works, 2008 ME 81 , 946 A.2d 395 . 4 In the combined cases, the Law Court considered whether a Workers' Compensation Board hearing officer erred when, in the absence of a promulgated fee schedule for facility charges, the hearing officer ordered employers to pay the facility's "usual and customary charges" without allowing the employers to inquir 2008Whether the 5% discount is a standard, schedule or scale identified in section 209(1) After the parties filed briefs in this case, the Law Court rendered its opinion in the combined cases of Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. and Babine v. Bath Iron Works, 2008 ME 81 , 946 A.2d 395 . 4 In the combined cases, the Law Court considered whether a Workers' Compensation Board hearing officer erred when, in the absence of a promulgated fee schedule for facility charges, the hearing officer ordered employers to pay the facility's "usual and customary charges" without allowing the employers to inquir | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Longtin v. City of Lewiston
green
2 sentences2005We will not overturn a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer “unless it can be said that; the Board lacks a rational basis for its application of law to the facts.” Longtin v. City of Lewiston, 1998 ME 90, ¶ 11 , 710 A.2d 901, 904-05 ; accord Dorey v. Forster Mfg. 2005We will not overturn a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer “unless it can be said that; the Board lacks a rational basis for its application of law to the facts.” Longtin v. City of Lewiston, 1998 ME 90, ¶ 11 , 710 A.2d 901, 904-05 ; accord Dorey v. Forster Mfg. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.
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.