Notes of Decisions
In Re Wage Payment Litig., 2000 ME 162 (Me. 2000).
· cites it 19× “[¶ 1] Five classes of employees appeal judgments of dismissal of their complaints against their employers asserting that their employers' practice of paying them on a bi-weekly basis created causes of action pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 621 (1988 & Supp.1998) (concerning the timely…”
Marston v. Newavom, 629 A.2d 587 (Me. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Rumford Community Hosp., 531 A.2d 1276, 1280 (Me.1987) stating that: the "Legislature did not intend .”
Schroeder v. Rynel, Ltd., Inc., 1998 ME 259 (Me. 1998).
· cites it 4× “” [¶ 6] Sehroeder filed a complaint in the Superior Court against Rynel for outstanding salary and benefits owned to him in violation of 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 621 and 626 (1988 & Supp. 1998).”
In Re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Emp. Practices Litig., 490 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (D. Nev. 2007).
“Maine has interpreted a predecessor to § 621-A to permit an employee to sue for unpaid wages “only if: (1) the employee has been discharged, subsequently demands to be paid, and the employer refuses to do so, see 26 M.R.S.A. § 626; or (2) when that employer has failed to pay a…”
Grant v. City of Saco, 436 A.2d 403 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 2× “In November 1979, the plaintiffs, asserting a violation of 26 M.R.S.A. § 621 by the City of Saco, the Saco School Committee, and Howard Cushman, Superintendent of Schools, brought an action pursuant to 26 M.”
Purdy v. Cmty. Telecomm. Corp., 663 A.2d 25 (Me. 1995).
· cites it 2× “CTC was a corporation engaged in the sales and service of telephone equipment, a mercantile business and one of the types of employers specified in 26 M.R.S.A. § 621(1). This, not the payment interval, is the controlling factor in determining the applicability of section 626;…”
Knoppers v. Rumford Cmty. Hosp., 531 A.2d 1276 (Me. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Given the historical derivation of section 626 in relation to that of sections 621-624, we conclude that the Legislature intended to limit “any employee” under section 626 to those employed by the employers specified in section 621(1) and its precursors, 26 M.R.S.A. § 621 (1974)…”
Pratt v. Ottum, 2000 ME 203 (Me. 2000).
“A summaiy judgment was denied against Pratt's claim for violation of 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 621 & 626 (1988 & Supp.1999), which govern the time of payment and the remedies available for nonpayment of wages.”
Heller v. Allied Textile Companies Ltd., 276 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Me. 2003).
“Plaintiffs complaint actually alleges a cause of action under the repealed provision 26 M.R.S.A. § 621. However, Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged the applicability of section 621-A at oral arguments.”
OfficeMax Inc. v. Cnty. Qwik Print, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 271 (D. Me. 2011).
“§ 626; or (2) when that employer has failed to pay a current employee in full, if the employer fails to *282 pay the amount withheld by that employee’s next regularly scheduled payday, see 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 621, 626-A. 2000 ME 162, ¶ 15 , 759 A.”
Finn v. Cup 4 Cup LLC (D. Me. 2023).
· cites it 4× “Finally, the Defendants suggest that a cause of action under 26 M.R.S. § 621- A is only available if an employer “has failed to pay a current employee in full, if the employer fails to pay the amount withheld by that employee’s next regularly scheduled payday.”
Local 6, Indus. Union of Marine Shipbuilding Workers v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 617 F. Supp. 1046 (D. Me. 1985).
“Paragraph 3 of the Complaint states that the action was brought under 26 M.R.S.A. § 621, et seq. Defendant filed a Petition for Removal, asserting that the Complaint stated an action for breach of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, a federal cause of action…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 621(1) — 2 cases
Marston v. Newavom, 629 A.2d 587 (Me. 1993).
“Rumford Community Hosp., 531 A.2d 1276, 1280 (Me.1987) stating that: the "Legislature did not intend .”
Purdy v. Cmty. Telecomm. Corp., 663 A.2d 25 (Me. 1995).
“CTC was a corporation engaged in the sales and service of telephone equipment, a mercantile business and one of the types of employers specified in 26 M.R.S.A. § 621(1). This, not the payment interval, is the controlling factor in determining the applicability of section 626;…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 621(2) — 2 cases
In Re Wage Payment Litig., 2000 ME 162 (Me. 2000).
“[¶ 1] Five classes of employees appeal judgments of dismissal of their complaints against their employers asserting that their employers' practice of paying them on a bi-weekly basis created causes of action pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 621 (1988 & Supp.1998) (concerning the timely…”
Knoppers v. Rumford Cmty. Hosp., 531 A.2d 1276 (Me. 1987).
“Given the historical derivation of section 626 in relation to that of sections 621-624, we conclude that the Legislature intended to limit “any employee” under section 626 to those employed by the employers specified in section 621(1) and its precursors, 26 M.R.S.A. § 621 (1974)…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.