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 1992–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hatch v. Lido Co. of New Englandgreen2 sentences2018Title 39-A M.R.S. §§ 104, 107, 901, and 908 (2017) make up the foundations “of the compact constructed by the [L]egislature whereby the employer gives up his normal defenses and assumes automatic liability, while the employee gives up his right to common-law verdicts.” Hatch v. Lido Co., 609 A.2d 1155, 1156 (Me. 1992) (quotation marks omitted). 9 [¶14] We have applied the dual persona doctrine as an exception to the immunity afforded by the Act to a defendant employer or corporate officer. 2018Title 39-A M.R.S. §§ 104, 107, 901, and 908 (2017) make up the foundations "of the compact constructed by the [L]egislature whereby the employer gives up his normal defenses and assumes automatic liability, while the employee gives up his right to common-law verdicts." Hatch v. Lido Co. , 609 A.2d 1155 , 1156 (Me. 1992) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 14] We have applied the dual persona doctrine as an exception to the immunity afforded by the Act to a defendant employer or corporate officer. | 4 | 4 |
Peavey v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2018The same is [us] to reach an issue on an interlocutory appeal, the applicability of the exception to the final judgment rule must be presented as a question of law, not dependent on fact-findings to be made by the trial court.”) 12 equally true, if not more so, of Clark’s suit and the separate nature of the respective duties of Hammond Lumber Company and Benton, LLC.4 [¶18] Accordingly, the court did not err as a matter of law by holding that the dual persona doctrine’s exception to an employer’s immunity is inapposite to the assertion of immunity by Benton, LLC, nor did it err by denying the 2018The same is equally true, if not more so, of Clark's suit and the separate nature of the respective duties of Hammond Lumber Company and Benton, LLC. 4 [¶ 18] Accordingly, the court did not err as a matter of law by holding that the dual persona doctrine's exception to an employer's immunity is inapposite to the assertion of immunity by Benton, LLC, nor did it err by denying the motion for a summary judgment on that ground. 5 See Peavey , 637 A.2d at 451 ; LaBelle , 593 A.2d at 654 -55 . [¶ 19] Benton, LLC, portrays this case as novel and requiring us to make a logical extension of our dual pe | 2 | 2 |
LaBelle v. Crepeaugreen2 sentences2018The same is [us] to reach an issue on an interlocutory appeal, the applicability of the exception to the final judgment rule must be presented as a question of law, not dependent on fact-findings to be made by the trial court.”) 12 equally true, if not more so, of Clark’s suit and the separate nature of the respective duties of Hammond Lumber Company and Benton, LLC.4 [¶18] Accordingly, the court did not err as a matter of law by holding that the dual persona doctrine’s exception to an employer’s immunity is inapposite to the assertion of immunity by Benton, LLC, nor did it err by denying the 2018The same is equally true, if not more so, of Clark's suit and the separate nature of the respective duties of Hammond Lumber Company and Benton, LLC. 4 [¶ 18] Accordingly, the court did not err as a matter of law by holding that the dual persona doctrine's exception to an employer's immunity is inapposite to the assertion of immunity by Benton, LLC, nor did it err by denying the motion for a summary judgment on that ground. 5 See Peavey , 637 A.2d at 451 ; LaBelle , 593 A.2d at 654 -55 . [¶ 19] Benton, LLC, portrays this case as novel and requiring us to make a logical extension of our dual pe | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Li v. C.N. Brown Co.
green
1 sentence2010Li, 645 A.2d at 609 (citing Hatch v. Lido Co. of New England, 609 A.2d 1155, 1156 (Me. 1992)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Beverage v. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Under the dual persona doctrine, however, an otherwise exempt employer (or officer) may become liable to suit as a third party “if — and only if — he possesses a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to his status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes [the employer] as a separate legal person.” Id. § 72.-81. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.