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 1979–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adam v. MacDonald Page & Co.green1 sentence2008Also see Adam v. Macdonald Page & Co., 644 A.2d 461, 464-5 (Me. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Blance v. Alleygreen2 sentences1984Blance v. Alley, 404 A.2d 587, 589 (Me.1979). 1984Blance v. Alley, 404 A.2d 587, 589 (Me. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Glover v. Fonggreen1 sentence1979Glover v. Fong, 42 Hawaii 560, 578 (1958); Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496 , 141 S.W. 650 (1911). 3 Occasionally the same phrase “law of the case” is applied to a slightly different principle; namely, that, absent a showing of essentially different facts, the decision .by an appellate court on a given issue is to be followed in the trial court once the case is remanded, 4 and that the decision by an appellate court controls in subsequent proceedings in the same court. 5 It was of this principle that Judge Ma-gruder was speaking when, for the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mann
green
2 sentences2018See 17-A M.R.S. § 33 ; Mann , 2005 ME 25 , ¶ 13, 868 A.2d 183 . [¶ 49] Additionally, upon receiving a note from the jury asking for clarification on "causation," the court responded by giving a clarifying instruction that used language similar to the language that Hopkins originally requested. 2018See 17-A M.R.S. § 33 ; Mann , 2005 ME 25 , ¶ 13, 868 A.2d 183 . [¶ 49] Additionally, upon receiving a note from the jury asking for clarification on "causation," the court responded by giving a clarifying instruction that used language similar to the language that Hopkins originally requested. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Jordan v. City of Ellsworth
green
2 sentences2012Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 2003 ME 82, ¶ 9 , 828 A.2d 768 . [¶ 16] We agree with the Board that the land beneath Jewett Cove Road can be included in the acreage calculation of Richardson’s property but come to this conclusion using a slightly different analysis of the Ordinance. 2012Jordan v. City of Ellsworth, 2003 ME 82, ¶ 9 , 828 A.2d 768 . [¶ 16] We agree with the Board that the land beneath Jewett Cove Road can be included in the acreage calculation of Richardson’s property but come to this conclusion using a slightly different analysis of the Ordinance. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
cluster 409634
green
2 sentences1999In In re N-500L Cases, 691 F.2d 15 , the First Circuit reached its determination that the parties to a contribution action are entitled to a jury trial through a slightly different analysis than ours. 1999It determined that its previous references to the term "equitable” to describe the right to contribution used the term only "in its sense of fairness and justice and [did] not address the jury trial question.” Id. at 20 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Mangold v. Bacon
green
2 sentences1979Glover v. Fong, 42 Hawaii 560, 578 (1958); Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496 , 141 S.W. 650 (1911). 3 Occasionally the same phrase “law of the case” is applied to a slightly different principle; namely, that, absent a showing of essentially different facts, the decision .by an appellate court on a given issue is to be followed in the trial court once the case is remanded, 4 and that the decision by an appellate court controls in subsequent proceedings in the same court. 5 It was of this principle that Judge Ma-gruder was speaking when, for the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1979Glover v. Fong, 42 Hawaii 560, 578 (1958); Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496 , 141 S.W. 650 (1911). 3 Occasionally the same phrase “law of the case” is applied to a slightly different principle; namely, that, absent a showing of essentially different facts, the decision .by an appellate court on a given issue is to be followed in the trial court once the case is remanded, 4 and that the decision by an appellate court controls in subsequent proceedings in the same court. 5 It was of this principle that Judge Ma-gruder was speaking when, for the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.