Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Littlefield v. Inhabitants of Town of Lymangreen1 sentence2026See id. at 1235 . [¶17] In addition, after we decided Littlefield, section 302 was amended to add the language clarifying that substantive review was required. | 1 | 1 |
Gerald v. Town of Yorkgreen1 sentence2016See Gerald v. York, 589 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Me. 1991) ("The terms or expressions in an ordinance are to be construed reasonably with regard to both the objectives sought to be obtained and the general structure of the ordinance as a whole." ). b. | 1 | 1 |
Scotiabank de Puerto Rico v. Burgosgreen1 sentence2015This, Petitioners argue, is demonstrated by the use of the word "may" in the section on waivers, as compared to the balance of the Ordinance, that uses the word "must" on almost every page. (citing In re the Plaza Resort at Palm as, Inc. v. Scotiabank De Puerto Rico, 741 F.3d 269, 276 (1st Cir. 2014) ("[t]hat phrase ["may be recorded"] unambiguously indicates that recordation of special real property rights is an option, not an obligation); see also Rastelli v. Warden, Metro. | 1 | 1 |
York v. Town of Ogunquitgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., York v. Town of Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , ¶ 4 n. 4, 769 A.2d 172, 174 . [¶ 13] We do not read section 1.6 of the Ordinance to impose a setback requirement requiring a variance from the Board of Appeals. 2009See, e.g., York v. Town of Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , ¶ 4 n. 4, 769 A.2d 172, 174 . [¶ 13] We do not read section 1.6 of the Ordinance to impose a setback requirement requiring a variance from the Board of Appeals. | 1 | 1 |
Pepperman v. Town of Rangeleygreen1 sentence1999See Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley, 659 A.2d 280 (Me.1995) (upheld denial of variance for applicant who built a lean-to that violated a setback requirement on the ground that applicant failed to meet the reasonable return prong). | 1 | 1 |
Twigg v. Town of Kennebunkgreen1 sentence1999Failure to yield a “reasonable return” means “the practical loss of all beneficial use of the land.” Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914, 918 (Me.1995) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Sibley v. Inhabitants of Town of Wellsgreen1 sentence1987See Sibley v. Town of Wells, 462 A.2d 27 (Me.1983); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thacker v. Konover Development Corp.
green
2 sentences2016Corp., 2003 ME 30 , <JI 10 n.4, 818 A.2d 1013 (stating that remand was unnecessary when facts were easily identified from the record, even though findings consisted of "a preprinted checklist of findings without any original findings based upon the administrative record"). (citation to footnote only). 6 the Board to determine whether the original structure could fit beyond the setback requirement would lead to an unreasonable result because relocating the deck and riprap away from the ravine would result in a hazardous condition on the property. 2016Corp., 2003 ME 30 , <JI 10 n.4, 818 A.2d 1013 (stating that remand was unnecessary when facts were easily identified from the record, even though findings consisted of "a preprinted checklist of findings without any original findings based upon the administrative record"). (citation to footnote only). 6 the Board to determine whether the original structure could fit beyond the setback requirement would lead to an unreasonable result because relocating the deck and riprap away from the ravine would result in a hazardous condition on the property. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Stewart v. Town of Sedgwick
green
1 sentence2013Consistent with Stewart v. Town of Sedgwick, 2000 ME 157 <J[ 7, that means that the ZBA must look at the substantive issues afresh, must undertake its own credibility determinations, must evaluate the evidence presented, and must draw its own conclusions independent of the decision made by the Code Enforcement Officer. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
green
2 sentences1987See Sibley v. Town of Wells, 462 A.2d 27 (Me.1983); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). 1987See Sibley v. Town of Wells, 462 A.2d 27 (Me.1983); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.