7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rhoda v. Fitzpatrickgreen2 sentences2005If the words create no doubt, the deed is clear and unambiguous.’ ” Bennett v. Tracy, 1999 ME 165, ¶ 8 , 740 A.2d 571, 573 (quoting Rhoda v. Fitzpatrick, 655 A.2d 357, 360 (Me.1995)). 1999If the words create no doubt, the deed is clear and unambiguous.” Rhoda v. Fitzpatrick, 655 A.2d 357, 360 (Me.1995) (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Bennett v. Tracygreen2 sentences2005If the words create no doubt, the deed is clear and unambiguous.’ ” Bennett v. Tracy, 1999 ME 165, ¶ 8 , 740 A.2d 571, 573 (quoting Rhoda v. Fitzpatrick, 655 A.2d 357, 360 (Me.1995)). 2005If the words create no doubt, the deed is clear and unambiguous.’ ” Bennett v. Tracy, 1999 ME 165, ¶ 8 , 740 A.2d 571, 573 (quoting Rhoda v. Fitzpatrick, 655 A.2d 357, 360 (Me.1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Sylvan Properties Co. v. State Planning Officegreen2 sentences1999See Sylvan Properties Co. v. State Planning Office, 1998 ME 106, ¶ 8 , 711 A.2d 138, 139 . [¶ 8] The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to “give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they create any ambiguity. 1999See Sylvan Properties Co. v. State Planning Office, 1998 ME 106, ¶ 8 , 711 A.2d 138, 139 . [¶ 8] The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to “give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they create any ambiguity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beverly A. Gravison v. Calvert M. Fisher
green
2 sentences2023"The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they create any ambiguity." Gravison v. Fisher, 2016 ME 35 , ,r 39, 134 A.3d 857 (quoting Green v. Lawrence, 2005 ME 90 , ,r 7, 877 A.2d 1079 ). 2023"The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they create any ambiguity." Gravison v. Fisher, 2016 ME 35 , ,r 39, 134 A.3d 857 (quoting Green v. Lawrence, 2005 ME 90 , ,r 7, 877 A.2d 1079 ). | 3 | 2021–2023 |
Green v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences2023"The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they create any ambiguity." Gravison v. Fisher, 2016 ME 35 , ,r 39, 134 A.3d 857 (quoting Green v. Lawrence, 2005 ME 90 , ,r 7, 877 A.2d 1079 ). 2023"The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they create any ambiguity." Gravison v. Fisher, 2016 ME 35 , ,r 39, 134 A.3d 857 (quoting Green v. Lawrence, 2005 ME 90 , ,r 7, 877 A.2d 1079 ). | 3 | 2016–2023 |
Chesley v. Holmes
green
2 sentences2016Chesley, 40 Me. at 546 . [¶39] “The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they'create any ambiguity. 2016Chesley, 40 Me. at 546 . [¶39] “The first step in any analysis of the language in a deed is to give words their general and ordinary meaning to see if they create any ambiguity. 19 If the words create no doubt, the deed is clear and unambiguous,” and it will guide the court’s construction of the parties’ intent. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
NORTH SEBAGO SHORES, LLC v. Mazzaglia
green
2 sentences2023"If the deed is unambiguous, the court must construe the deed without considering extrinsic evidence; if the deed is ambiguous, however, the court may admit extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent." N. Sebago Shores, LLC v. Mazzaglia, 2007 ME 81 , ,r 13, 926 A.2d 728 . 2023"If the deed is unambiguous, the court must construe the deed without considering extrinsic evidence; if the deed is ambiguous, however, the court may admit extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent." N. Sebago Shores, LLC v. Mazzaglia, 2007 ME 81 , ,r 13, 926 A.2d 728 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |