Legal Opinion

Arel v. Poirier

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided November 30, 1987PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROBERTS, Justice.

In this action for negligent operation of a motor vehicle, tried by jury in the Superior Court, Androscoggin County, plaintiff Donald M. Arel, appeals from the Superior Court judgment in his favor. Arel claims that he is entitled to a new trial on the following grounds: 1) the damages awarded by the jury were clearly inadequate as a matter of law, 2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he was negligent to any degree, 3) the court erroneously excluded evidence of defendant Raymond Poirier’s driving practices on the road where the accident occurred…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Binette v. DeaneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  2. Marr v. ShoresSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985
  3. Mandarelli v. McGovernSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  4. Nordic Sugar Corp. v. Maine Guarantee AuthoritySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982
  5. McLellan v. MorrisonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. General Motors Corp. v. SeayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  2. State v. BickartSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2009
  3. State v. LibbySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1988
  4. Jacob v. KippaxSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011
  5. Levesque v. Central Maine Medical CenterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API