6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Kieliszekgreen2 sentences2018See Mitchell v. Kieliszek , 2006 ME 70 , ¶ 20, 900 A.2d 719 . 2018See Mitchell v. Kieliszek , 2006 ME 70 , ¶ 20, 900 A.2d 719 . | 2 | 2 |
In re Henry B.green1 sentence2026See In re Henry B., 2017 ME 72, ¶ 12 , 159 A.3d 824 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re Henry B.green1 sentence2026See In re Henry B., 2017 ME 72, ¶ 12 , 159 A.3d 824 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Securities Exchange Commissiongreen1 sentence2005Further, defendant Nye’s reference to the alleged assault as “love making,” although insensitive and upsetting to plaintiff,’ was not ““accompanied by an alteration in legal status or extinction of some legally protected right,’ nor could it have been.” Id. at * 9. (quoting Hunter v. SEC, 879 F. Supp. 494, 497 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
LaRochelle v. Crest Shoe Co.green1 sentence1999See 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312(2); cf. LaRochelle v. Crest Shoe Co., 655 A.2d 1245, 1247 (Me.1995) (examining phrase “pending appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MacOmber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie
green
2 sentences2021The outcome of the analysis is no different. 12 (citing Macomber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 ME 121 , ,-i 22, 834 A.2d 131, 139 ). 2021The outcome of the analysis is no different. 12 (citing Macomber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 2003 ME 121 , ,-i 22, 834 A.2d 131, 139 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Paul v. Davis
green
1 sentence2005Here, “the plaintiff’s property interest in a public education was not at issue in the Committee hearing and any alleged loss of educational opportunity was due to [plaintiff's] subjective response to the outcome of the hearing.” Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.