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.
6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corso v. Merrillgreen2 sentences2010See Cailleroll, 610 A.2d at 284 citing TOlllmy's Elbow Room, Illc. v. Kl1vorkil7ll, 727 A.2d 1038 (Alaska 1986) (replacing requirement of contemporaneous observation of the accident with requirement of seeing victim at the scene); Corso v. Merrill, 406 A.2d 300 (N.H. 1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at the accident scene). 1992Compare Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1 , 780 P.2d 566 (1989) (recovery allowed to parent on same island as accident victim at time of accident) with Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Inc., 56 Haw. 204 , 532 P.2d 673 (1975) (recovery precluded to parent in California at time of injury); compare also Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at accident scene) with Wilder v. Keene, 131 N.H. 599 , 557 A.2d 636 (1989) (no recovery allowed to parent who saw victim at hospital one hour after the accident). | 1 | 2 |
Townsend v. Maine Bureau of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2013Safety, 404 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Me. 1979) (noting that the Legislature avoided the harsh results of prior cases that held that a gradually occurring injury was non-compensable by deleting the accident requirement); Michaud v. N. Me. 2013Safety, 404 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Me.1979) (noting that the Legislature avoided the harsh results of prior cases that held that a gradually occurring injury was non-compensable by deleting the accident requirement); Michaud v. N. Me. | 1 | 1 |
Risoldi v. Risoldigreen1 sentence2010See Cailleroll, 610 A.2d at 284 citing TOlllmy's Elbow Room, Illc. v. Kl1vorkil7ll, 727 A.2d 1038 (Alaska 1986) (replacing requirement of contemporaneous observation of the accident with requirement of seeing victim at the scene); Corso v. Merrill, 406 A.2d 300 (N.H. 1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at the accident scene). | 1 | 1 |
Cameron v. Pepingreen1 sentence2010See Cailleroll, 610 A.2d at 284 citing TOlllmy's Elbow Room, Illc. v. Kl1vorkil7ll, 727 A.2d 1038 (Alaska 1986) (replacing requirement of contemporaneous observation of the accident with requirement of seeing victim at the scene); Corso v. Merrill, 406 A.2d 300 (N.H. 1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at the accident scene). | 1 | 1 |
Wilder v. City of Keenegreen2 sentences1992Compare Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1 , 780 P.2d 566 (1989) (recovery allowed to parent on same island as accident victim at time of accident) with Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Inc., 56 Haw. 204 , 532 P.2d 673 (1975) (recovery precluded to parent in California at time of injury); compare also Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at accident scene) with Wilder v. Keene, 131 N.H. 599 , 557 A.2d 636 (1989) (no recovery allowed to parent who saw victim at hospital one hour after the accident). 1992Compare Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1 , 780 P.2d 566 (1989) (recovery allowed to parent on same island as accident victim at time of accident) with Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Inc., 56 Haw. 204 , 532 P.2d 673 (1975) (recovery precluded to parent in California at time of injury); compare also Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at accident scene) with Wilder v. Keene, 131 N.H. 599 , 557 A.2d 636 (1989) (no recovery allowed to parent who saw victim at hospital one hour after the accident). | 1 | 1 |
Kelley v. Kokua Sales and Supply, Ltd.green2 sentences1992Compare Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1 , 780 P.2d 566 (1989) (recovery allowed to parent on same island as accident victim at time of accident) with Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Inc., 56 Haw. 204 , 532 P.2d 673 (1975) (recovery precluded to parent in California at time of injury); compare also Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at accident scene) with Wilder v. Keene, 131 N.H. 599 , 557 A.2d 636 (1989) (no recovery allowed to parent who saw victim at hospital one hour after the accident). 1992Compare Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1 , 780 P.2d 566 (1989) (recovery allowed to parent on same island as accident victim at time of accident) with Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Inc., 56 Haw. 204 , 532 P.2d 673 (1975) (recovery precluded to parent in California at time of injury); compare also Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at accident scene) with Wilder v. Keene, 131 N.H. 599 , 557 A.2d 636 (1989) (no recovery allowed to parent who saw victim at hospital one hour after the accident). | 1 | 1 |
Masaki v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences1992Compare Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1 , 780 P.2d 566 (1989) (recovery allowed to parent on same island as accident victim at time of accident) with Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Inc., 56 Haw. 204 , 532 P.2d 673 (1975) (recovery precluded to parent in California at time of injury); compare also Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at accident scene) with Wilder v. Keene, 131 N.H. 599 , 557 A.2d 636 (1989) (no recovery allowed to parent who saw victim at hospital one hour after the accident). 1992Compare Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1 , 780 P.2d 566 (1989) (recovery allowed to parent on same island as accident victim at time of accident) with Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Inc., 56 Haw. 204 , 532 P.2d 673 (1975) (recovery precluded to parent in California at time of injury); compare also Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979) (recovery allowed to parent who did not see accident but saw victim at accident scene) with Wilder v. Keene, 131 N.H. 599 , 557 A.2d 636 (1989) (no recovery allowed to parent who saw victim at hospital one hour after the accident). | 1 | 1 |
Tommy's Elbow Room, Inc. v. Kavorkiangreen1 sentence1992See also Tommy’s Elbow Room, Inc. v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038 (Alaska 1986) (replacing requirement of contemporaneous observation of the accident with requirement of seeing victim at the scene). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Canning v. State Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences1979In Canning, we stated that “[the] attempt to liberalize the Act [to compensate employees for injuries suffered while and because they were at work] could be achieved fully only by excising the accident standard from the entire Act.” Id. at 608 . 1977We held in Canning v. State Department of Transportation, 1975, Me., 347 A.2d 605 , that this legislative amendment effectively excised the accident standard from the entire Act, including section 51 which governs payment of compensation benefits. | 2 | 1977–1979 |
American Motorists Insurance Co. v. LaCourse
green
1 sentence2008At the very least, he argues, Akers surely knew that his motorcycle would be moved as needed by employees. 6 According to the Law Court, "implied permission differs little from express permission except that it is proved circumstantially from conduct which evidences an 5 Duggan claims that there was a set of keys to the Harley at Colonial because Jackson used them to start it. 6 Duggan does not provide any factual support for this claim. 10 actual intent to permit certain actions." American Motorists Insurance Co. v. LaCourse, 314 A.2d 813 , 817 n. 1 (Me. 1974). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ross v. Oxford Paper Company
green
1 sentence1979In Ross v. Oxford Paper Co., Me., 363 A.2d 712 (1976), the claimant, a roll handler at a paper mill, suffered numbness in his hands cumulatively caused by repeated *1017 trauma to them. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Towle v. Department of Transportation, State Highway
green
1 sentence1977Since the event with which we are here concerned occurred prior to the change in the statute, we repeat, as we stated in Towle v. Department of Transportation, State Highway, 1974, Me., 318 A.2d 71 , that we need not concern ourselves with the effect of the amendment, as the rights and obligations of the parties are fixed and governed by the statute in force at the time when the alleged compensable occurrence took place. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.