7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Everett B. Robinson v. Bobby Freeze, Deputy Sheriff, Little River Countygreen1 sentence2018The extension of immunity to these officials tum[ s] on the nature of the function performed, not on the officer's title." Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108-09 (8th Cir. 1994) (citations and quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Wepringreen1 sentence2018One court has found "[e]ven when functions that are more administrative in character have been undertaken pursuant to the explicit direction of a judicial officer, . . . that officer's immunity is also available to the subordinate." Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Shemeth v. Selectmen of Holdengreen2 sentences1984See, e.g., Shemeth v. Selectmen of Holden, 317 Mass. 278, 280 , 58 N.E.2d 6, 7 (1944) (building permit); 53 C.J.S. 1984See, e.g., Shemeth v. Selectmen of Holden, 317 Mass. 278, 280 , 58 N.E.2d 6, 7 (1944) (building permit); 53 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
Maine Central Railroad v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroadgreen1 sentence1982Marshwood further argues that the order of December 14, 1981 appointing an arbitrator falls within the broad terms of section 5945(1)(F), and therefore should similarly be reviewable by this Court through an extension of the rule adopted in Maine Central Railroad Co. v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co., Me., 395 A.2d 1107, 1113 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guardianship of Hughes
green
2 sentences2018Notice of Issues to be Addressed [¶ 16] The defendant argues that he did not receive proper notice of the issues to be addressed at the extension hearing, because he did not know that the court could consider his conduct that led to the original protection order, or that he could be deprived of his right to possess firearms should the court make a finding of abuse against him. 3 [¶ 17] "In a procedural due process challenge, we must first determine whether the governmental action has resulted in a deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Guardianship of Hughes , 1998 ME 186 , ¶ 9, 715 A.2d 2018Notice of Issues to be Addressed [¶ 16] The defendant argues that he did not receive proper notice of the issues to be addressed at the extension hearing, because he did not know that the court could consider his conduct that led to the original protection order, or that he could be deprived of his right to possess firearms should the court make a finding of abuse against him. 3 [¶ 17] "In a procedural due process challenge, we must first determine whether the governmental action has resulted in a deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Guardianship of Hughes , 1998 ME 186 , ¶ 9, 715 A.2d | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Towne v. Larson
green
2 sentences1967The extension of the rule to real estate was accepted as foregone in Towne et al. v. Larson, 142 Me. 301, 305 , 51 A.2d 51 . 1967The extension of the rule to real estate was accepted as foregone in Towne et al. v. Larson, 142 Me. 301, 305 , 51 A.2d 51 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Pittsburgh
green
2 sentences1967While it may well be that the owner may not possess “all the qualifications that would be required of others who testify as to value,” an owner “through personal knowledge of his property, with a reasonable opportunity to observe its area, the uses to which it may be put, the extent and condition of any improvements thereon, possesses sufficient knowledge from which to form an opinion as to the value” Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. City of Pittsburgh (1934) 316 Pa. 372 , 176 A. 13 [4, 5], 15. 1967While it may well be that the owner may not possess “all the qualifications that would be required of others who testify as to value,” an owner “through personal knowledge of his property, with a reasonable opportunity to observe its area, the uses to which it may be put, the extent and condition of any improvements thereon, possesses sufficient knowledge from which to form an opinion as to the value” Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. City of Pittsburgh (1934) 316 Pa. 372 , 176 A. 13 [4, 5], 15. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Nadeau v. Perkins
green
1 sentence1942For this extension of the principle declared in Nadeau v. Perkins, supra, the plaintiff offers as authority two cases decided in other jurisdictions and comment thereon in Wigmore’s Evidence. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.