6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1900–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hauser v. Mealeygreen1 sentence2021“When a court cannot ascertain what was litigated and decided, issue preclusion cannot operate.” 18 Moore et al., Moore’s Federal 26 Practice § 132.03[2][g]; see Hauser v. Mealey, 263 N.W.2d 803, 808-09 (Minn. 1978) (declining to preclude the relitigation of issues previously determined when there was more than one possible basis for the court’s decision). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
York v. Town of Ogunquit
green
2 sentences2013The Town and Pisgah contend nonetheless that the iso-contour map requirement can be waived because it is a submission requirement, not a standard, citing York v. Town if Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , 769 A.2d 172 ; Perkins v. Town ifOgunquit, 1998 ME 42 , 709 A.2d 106 ; and Fitanides v. City if Saco, 684 A.2d 421 (Me. 1996), cases in which the Law Court has held that a planning board cannot waive zoning ordinance standards but can waive the submission requirements of an ordinance. 2013The Town and Pisgah contend nonetheless that the iso-contour map requirement can be waived because it is a submission requirement, not a standard, citing York v. Town if Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , 769 A.2d 172 ; Perkins v. Town ifOgunquit, 1998 ME 42 , 709 A.2d 106 ; and Fitanides v. City if Saco, 684 A.2d 421 (Me. 1996), cases in which the Law Court has held that a planning board cannot waive zoning ordinance standards but can waive the submission requirements of an ordinance. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fitanides v. City of Saco
green
2 sentences2013The Town and Pisgah contend nonetheless that the iso-contour map requirement can be waived because it is a submission requirement, not a standard, citing York v. Town if Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , 769 A.2d 172 ; Perkins v. Town ifOgunquit, 1998 ME 42 , 709 A.2d 106 ; and Fitanides v. City if Saco, 684 A.2d 421 (Me. 1996), cases in which the Law Court has held that a planning board cannot waive zoning ordinance standards but can waive the submission requirements of an ordinance. 2013Oct. 17 2002) (Gorman, J.) ("The Board [of Appeals] cannot simply waive a time limit imposed by the Ordinance because it has spent some time reviewing the case.") In the case of submission requirements as well as standards, a planning board's authority to waive an ordinance requirement is limited to what the ordinance allows. 2 For example, in the Fitanides opinion cited by the Town and Pisgah, the Law Court upheld the planning board's waiver of a submission requirement because the ordinance at issue specifically authorized the board to waive submission requirements. 684 A.2d at 423 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Jarrett v. Town of Limington
green
2 sentences2013On the other hand, in Jarrett v. Town ifLimington, the Law Court held that the waiver provisions of the applicable ordinance did not permit the planning board to waive a submission requirement requiring the applicant to provide a test or an affidavit regarding water quality. 571 A.2d at 815 . 2013On the other hand, in Jarrett v. Town ifLimington, the Law Court held that the waiver provisions of the applicable ordinance did not permit the planning board to waive a submission requirement requiring the applicant to provide a test or an affidavit regarding water quality. 571 A.2d at 815 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Perkins v. Town of Ogunquit
green
2 sentences2013The Town and Pisgah contend nonetheless that the iso-contour map requirement can be waived because it is a submission requirement, not a standard, citing York v. Town if Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , 769 A.2d 172 ; Perkins v. Town ifOgunquit, 1998 ME 42 , 709 A.2d 106 ; and Fitanides v. City if Saco, 684 A.2d 421 (Me. 1996), cases in which the Law Court has held that a planning board cannot waive zoning ordinance standards but can waive the submission requirements of an ordinance. 2013The Town and Pisgah contend nonetheless that the iso-contour map requirement can be waived because it is a submission requirement, not a standard, citing York v. Town if Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 , 769 A.2d 172 ; Perkins v. Town ifOgunquit, 1998 ME 42 , 709 A.2d 106 ; and Fitanides v. City if Saco, 684 A.2d 421 (Me. 1996), cases in which the Law Court has held that a planning board cannot waive zoning ordinance standards but can waive the submission requirements of an ordinance. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Munsey
green
2 sentences1978State v. Munsey, 152 Me. 198 , 127 A.2d 79 (1956).” (Emphasis added) As a result of the decision of the arresting officer to seek the defendant’s submission to a test, the defendant also had a statutory right to select between the available tests. 1978State v. Munsey, 152 Me. 198 , 127 A.2d 79 (1956).” (Emphasis added) As a result of the decision of the arresting officer to seek the defendant’s submission to a test, the defendant also had a statutory right to select between the available tests. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Gregory v. Pike
neutral
1 sentence1943Gregory v. Pike, 94 Me., 27, 32, 46 A. 793 ; Clark v. Clark, 111 Me., 416, 417, 418, 89 A. 454 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Clark v. Clark
green
1 sentence1943Gregory v. Pike, 94 Me., 27, 32, 46 A. 793 ; Clark v. Clark, 111 Me., 416, 417, 418, 89 A. 454 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Commonwealth v. Kendrick
green
1 sentence1924Commonwealth v. Goodman, 97 Mass., 117 ; Commonwealth v. Kendrick, 147 Mass., 444 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Commonwealth v. Goodman
neutral
1 sentence1924Commonwealth v. Goodman, 97 Mass., 117 ; Commonwealth v. Kendrick, 147 Mass., 444 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Haskell v. Whitney
green
1 sentence1900Haskell v. Whitney, 12 Mass. 47 . | 1 | 1900–1900 |
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.