Legal Opinion

Milstar Manufacturing Corp. v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided February 4, 1976PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARCHIBALD, Justice.

This matter comes before us both on appeal and on report. Since the appeal is from the mandate reporting the case, it is evident that sustaining the appeal would automatically void this mandate. Therefore, our preliminary concern is with the issues raised by the appeal.

Waterville Urban Renewal Authority (Authority) in the exercise of its power of eminent domain (30 M.R.S.A. § 4807) acquired title to certain real estate in Water-ville formerly known as “Lockwood Park.” There is no dispute over the fair market value of the land taken, namely, $80,000.00. When the damages were…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Northeast Investment Co. v. Leisure Living Communities, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
  2. Packard v. WhittenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971
  3. Munsey v. GrovesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
  4. Vachon v. Inhabitants of the Town of LisbonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
  5. Ingham v. TzikasSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. Maine State Employees Ass'nSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
  2. Department of Human Services v. LowatchieSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1990
  3. Maine Central Railroad v. Bangor & Aroostook RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  4. Struck v. HackettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995
  5. Walker v. Acting DirectorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979

7 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