2505 search results for query *

Summary: 751 F. Supp. In Leader v. Blackman, 744 F. Supp. But see Leader, 744 F. Supp. 500; Morrobel v. Thornburgh, 744 F. Supp. See Leader, 744 F. Supp. Leader, 744 F. Supp. Leader, 744 F. Supp.

Summary: 757 F. Supp. 2d 42 (2010) Leann M. SANBORN, Plaintiff, v. Paul F. PRUE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTION FOR ATTACHMENT AND ATTACHMENT ON TRUSTEE PROCESS JOHN H. RICH III, United States Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff in this action alleging sexual abuse seeks an attachment against the defendant in the amount of $150,000. Motion for Attachment and Attachment on Trustee Process ("Motion") (Docket No. 4) at 1. Under Maine law, attachment and attachment on trustee process are available more.

Summary: 324 F. Supp. 2d 176 (2004) Ralf SIEGEMUND, Special Administrator for the Estate of Joan L. Siegemund, et al., Plaintiffs v. Peter SHAPLAND, et al., Defendants No. *177 *178 *179 Thomas F. Hallett, Portland, ME, for Ralph Siegemund, Special Administrator for the Estate of Joan L. Siegemund, Ralf Siegemund, plaintiffs. After her mother's death, the daughter sued the personal representative of her mother's estate and both guardians for money damages. I now conclude that several of the daughter's more.

Summary: 586 F. Supp. Two First Circuit decisions, i.e., United States v. Montgomery, 714 F.2d 201, 202 (1983), and United States v. Downing, supra, however, might be read as interpreting Innis to mean that every police question constitutes interrogation. United States v. Montgomery, 714 F.2d at 202. United States v. Downing, 665 F.2d at 407. In Downing the Court could find no plausible noninvestigatory purpose for the questions, United States v. Downing, 665 F.2d at 407 n. 1, which "were `reasonably more.

Summary: 714 F. Supp. Sys., 304 F. Supp. Gargano v. Liberty Int'l Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir.2009). San Juan Capestrano, 412 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2005). Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d 254, 258 (1st Cir.1994); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004, 102 S. Ct. 2777, 73 L. Ed. Co., 316 F.3d 308, 313 (2d Cir.2003); see also MacDonald v. Eastern Wyoming Mental Health Center, 941 F.2d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir.1991) (no state action "[a]bsent any showing that the state directed, more.

Summary: 687 F. Supp. The plaintiff originally asserted diversity subject matter jurisdiction, and he now seeks to amend his complaint by adding a count in admiralty based on the maritime nature of the insurance policy in question. The plaintiff relies on Hedrick v. Dalko Shoji Co., Ltd., Osaka, 715 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir.1983), where the court determined that the Japanese manufacturer of a defective wire rope had purposefully directed his activities towards any forum where injury could occur because the more.

Summary: 330 F. Supp. Plaintiffs Dufour are Maine citizens; plaintiffs Macro are Canadian citizens; defendant Smith & Hamer, Inc. is a produce trucking company incorporated and having its principal place of business in South Carolina; and defendant Anderson, a truck driver employed by Smith & Hamer, Inc., is a South Carolina citizen.

Summary: 20 F. Supp. Frank v. State of New York, 972 F. Supp. at 136-37 (finding that "theory underlying MCS is untested, speculative, and far from general acceptance in the medical or toxicological community" and "fails to meet the standard of evidentiary reliability established in Daubert") (citing Bradley v. Brown, 852 F. Supp. 533, 542 (E.D.Okl.1995), aff'd, 132 F.3d 599 (10th Cir.1997) (adopting the reasoning and conclusions of Bradley and holding that plaintiffs "failed to show that the theories more.

Summary: 324 F. Supp. Michael J. Schmidt, Wheeler & Arey, P.A., Waterville, ME, Edward R. Benjamin, Jr., Thompson & Bowie, Mark E. Dunlap, Norman, Hanson & Detroy, Portland, *244 ME, William R. Fisher, Attorney General's Office, Augusta, ME, for Martin Fournier, James Lawlor, Roland Godbout, Ronald Gagnon, Richard Small, William Welch, Androscoggin, County of, City of Auburn, City of Lewiston, Maine Department of Public Safety, Maine Drug Enforcement Agency, Michael Cantara, Michael Kelly, Roy McKinney, more.

Summary: 340 F. Supp. 12(b)(6); Educadores Puertorriquenos en Accion v. Rey Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 62 (1st Cir.2004); Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231, 241 (1st Cir. 2d 80 (1957); Roy v. Augusta, 712 F.2d 1517,1522 (1st Cir.1983). [4] 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-316(2); Todd Equipment Leasing Co. v. Milligan, 395 A.2d 818, 820 (Me.1978); Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co., Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 445 F. Supp. 507, 516 (D.Me.1977); see McLaughlin v. Denharco, Inc., 129 F. Supp. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 193 (1st more.

Summary: 223 F. Supp. Bruce C. Mallonee, Ajaz S. Fiazuddin, Rudman & Winchell, Bangor, ME, Martica S. Douglas, James E. Fortin, Douglas, Denham, Buccina & Ernst, Portland, ME, James E. Fortin, Douglas, Denham, Buccina & Ernst, Portland, ME, Carl F. Rella, Rella & Lister, Bangor, ME, for Defendants. Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") has filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim (Count III) and the claim for unfair claims settlement practices (Count more.

Summary: 551 F. Supp. Neville Woodruff, Esq., Helen M. Bailey, Esq., and the Mental Health Law Project *189 (MHLP) through its staff attorney, Jane Bloom Yohalem, Esq., counsel for plaintiffs, each seek an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, for their services in implementing a July 1978 consent decree entered in the above-entitled action. *190 Presently before the Court are four motions for attorney's fees and costs for more.

Summary: 257 F. Supp. 2d 288 (2003) Alan STOKES, Plaintiff v. Jo Anne BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, and Regina Brooks, Defendants No. 02-103-PH. The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court on March 13, 2003, with copies to counsel, his Memorandum Decision on Defendants' Motion to Substitute and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Recommended Decision on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. The defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED except as to the more.

Summary: 45 F. Supp. The court in Phalen v. United States, 2 Cir., 32 F.2d 687, said: "The Public Vessels Act grants jurisdiction against public vessels which had been theretofore denied.

Summary: 586 F. Supp. Accord Balestrieri v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., 544 F. Supp. 210, 212 (N.D.Fla.1983); Balestrieri v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., supra; Friedrich v. Whittaker Corp., 467 F. Supp.

Summary: 901 F. Supp. Judith LaChapelle has sued her former husband's former employer to recover part of a retirement account (a simplified employee pension-individual retirement account — a "SEP[1]-IRA") awarded her in a *24 divorce decree. If the SEP-IRA label alone were not enough — simplified employee pension-individual retirement account — the regulations make clear that a SEP-IRA is not a welfare plan: the terms "employee welfare benefit plan" and "welfare plan" are defined in section 3(1) of the more.

Summary: 744 F. Supp. *353 Edward F. Lawson, Weston, Patrick, Willard & Redding, Boston, Mass., John C. Page, Zuckerman, Avaunt & Devine, Gray, Me., for plaintiffs. See Sierra Club v. Marsh, 714 F. Supp. The court found a likelihood of irreparable injury from inadequate compliance with the NEPA requirements relating to the analysis of "secondary impacts," the analysis of "reasonable alternatives," and the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement [EIS]. The court enjoined the more.

Summary: 824 F. Supp. *177 F. Todd Lowell, Office of the U.S. Attorney, District of Maine, Bangor, ME, Margaret D. McGaughey, U.S. Attorneys Office, District of Maine, Portland, ME, for Respondent. To aid in responding to Mr. Stone's petition, the Government moved for an order compelling Attorney Villa to turn over records relevant to the ineffective assistance claim and to submit to an informal interview by Government counsel. Magistrate Judge Kravchuk granted the Government's motion in part ordering more.

Summary: 721 F. Supp. [2] As to the first argument, the Maine statute providing for minimum insurance requirements says that a rental company must provide "a $350,000 combined single limit for rental vehicles" and that: The required insurance policy or bond must adequately provide liability insurance for the collection of damages for which the holder of a permit or the owner of a motor vehicle or vehicles may be liable by reason of the operation of a motor vehicle or vehicles subject to this chapter.