Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. v. Libby

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided March 9, 1995Published

1Dissent

ROBERTS, Justice,

with whom LIPEZ, J., joins, dissenting.

I agree with the Court’s conclusion that 1 M.R.S.A. § 71(12) (1989) by its terms does not operate to render M.R.Civ.P. 6(a) applicable to the computation of time pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2915 (1990). Nevertheless, I must respectfully dissent. In Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Concord Group Ins. Co., 623 A.2d 163 (Me.1993), we applied by analogy the method of calculating time described in Rule 6(a). Because the Legislature did not prescribe the method, we deemed it appropriate to look to Rule 6(a) so as to exclude the day of presumed…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Valley Forge Insurance v. Concord Group InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API