7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Erickson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016A claim filed under this section shall not be held invalid or insufficient .by reason of an inaccuracy in stating the time, place, nature or cause of the claim, or otherwise, unless it is shown that the governmental entity was in fact prejudiced thereby. *202 [¶ 13] We have held “that the substantial compliance exception is applicable only when the 180-day requirement of § 8107(1) is satisfied.” Erickson v. State, 444 A.2d 345, 349 (Me.1982). 2009"The substantial compliance exception is properly invoked only when the notice, although timely filed or excused from timely filing because of good cause, is defective in some other respect such as the failure to satisfy the form requirements of § 8107 (1) (A-E)." Erickson v. State, 444 A.2d 345, 350 (Me. 1982). | 4 | 4 |
Bell v. Waltongreen2 sentences2014See Bell v. Walton, 2004 ME 146, ¶ 11 , 861 A.2d 687 (“Mindful that [the statutory provision] is unambiguous ... there is no apparent reason to engraft a judicially created doctrine ... upon the statutory scheme.”). [¶ 18] Bearing these principles in mind, the record will only support a finding that the association failed to comply with the statutory requirement that it send notice of the initial meeting to all owners of parcels benefited by the private road. 2014See Bell v. Walton, 2004 ME 146, ¶ 11 , 861 A.2d 687 (“Mindful that [the statutory provision] is unambiguous ... there is no apparent reason to engraft a judicially created doctrine ... upon the statutory scheme.”). [¶ 18] Bearing these principles in mind, the record will only support a finding that the association failed to comply with the statutory requirement that it send notice of the initial meeting to all owners of parcels benefited by the private road. | 1 | 1 |
Feldmeier v. Watsongreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 , 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 470 , 128 P.3d 675, 690 (2006); Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444 , 123 P.3d 180, 183 (2005); Armstrong v. O’Toole, 917 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Colo.1996). 2006See, e.g., Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 , 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 470 , 128 P.3d 675, 690 (2006); Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444 , 123 P.3d 180, 183 (2005); Armstrong v. O’Toole, 917 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Colo.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Armstrong v. O'Toolegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 , 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 470 , 128 P.3d 675, 690 (2006); Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444 , 123 P.3d 180, 183 (2005); Armstrong v. O’Toole, 917 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Colo.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Loontjer v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2006Id. at 307-08. | 1 | 1 |
Costa v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 , 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 470 , 128 P.3d 675, 690 (2006); Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444 , 123 P.3d 180, 183 (2005); Armstrong v. O’Toole, 917 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Colo.1996). 2006See, e.g., Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 , 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 470 , 128 P.3d 675, 690 (2006); Feldmeier v. Watson, 211 Ariz. 444 , 123 P.3d 180, 183 (2005); Armstrong v. O’Toole, 917 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Colo.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. County of Riversidegreen2 sentences1982Cf. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.3d 183, 187 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 29, 31 (1981); Jenkins v. City of Wilmington, 45 N.C.App. 528, 529 , 263 S.E.2d 343, 344 (1980); Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 270 Cal. App.2d 759, 762 , 76 Cal.Rptr. 183, 186-87 (1969). 1982Cf. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.3d 183, 187 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 29, 31 (1981); Jenkins v. City of Wilmington, 45 N.C.App. 528, 529 , 263 S.E.2d 343, 344 (1980); Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 270 Cal. App.2d 759, 762 , 76 Cal.Rptr. 183, 186-87 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Districtgreen2 sentences1982Cf. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.3d 183, 187 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 29, 31 (1981); Jenkins v. City of Wilmington, 45 N.C.App. 528, 529 , 263 S.E.2d 343, 344 (1980); Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 270 Cal. App.2d 759, 762 , 76 Cal.Rptr. 183, 186-87 (1969). 1982Cf. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.3d 183, 187 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 29, 31 (1981); Jenkins v. City of Wilmington, 45 N.C.App. 528, 529 , 263 S.E.2d 343, 344 (1980); Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 270 Cal. App.2d 759, 762 , 76 Cal.Rptr. 183, 186-87 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. City of Wilmingtongreen2 sentences1982Cf. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.3d 183, 187 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 29, 31 (1981); Jenkins v. City of Wilmington, 45 N.C.App. 528, 529 , 263 S.E.2d 343, 344 (1980); Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 270 Cal. App.2d 759, 762 , 76 Cal.Rptr. 183, 186-87 (1969). 1982Cf. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.3d 183, 187 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 29, 31 (1981); Jenkins v. City of Wilmington, 45 N.C.App. 528, 529 , 263 S.E.2d 343, 344 (1980); Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 270 Cal. App.2d 759, 762 , 76 Cal.Rptr. 183, 186-87 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Town of Kittery
green
1 sentence1990In Hall v. Town of Kittery, 556 A.2d 662 (Me.1989), we held that knowledge by a city’s insurer or the insurer’s adjuster of facts surrounding an accident that may give rise to a claim by a plaintiff does not supplant the affirmative notice requirements of section 8107. 2 “The substantial compliance exception is properly invoked only when the notice, although timely filed or excused from timely filing because of good cause, is defective in some other respect such as the failure to satisfy the form requirements of § 8107(1)(A-E).” Erickson v. State, 444 A.2d 345, 350 (Me.1982) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.