Legal Opinion
Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided April 24, 1972PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DUFRESNE, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff, Rose Warren, was the owner of real estate situated on Temple Court in the City of Waterville in this State. The defendant Authority exercised its power of eminent domain and acquired the property pursuant to 30 M.R.S.A., § 4807, but not without a contest. See, Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, 1965, 161 Me. 160, 210 A.2d 41.
After trial of her complaint praying for the assessment of damages by a jury, Mrs. Warren was dissatisfied with the verdict of sixty thousand ($60,000) dollars, but this Court ruled on appeal that the plaintiff had been…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Escoe v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Reynolds v. StocktonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Brockett v. JensenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Gille v. EmmonsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897
- Hobbs v. HurleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1918
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Beegan v. SchmidtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982
- Union Mutual Fire Insurance v. Inhabitants of TopshamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982
- Kradoska v. KippSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- Reville v. RevilleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1977
- Sheepscot Land Corp. v. GregorySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.