Legal Opinion · Dissent
Arsenault v. Crossman
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided May 5, 1997Published
1DissentDana, Justice
[¶ 9] I respectfully dissent. Rule 68 leaves the court no discretion to refuse to award the offeror costs based on the financial circumstances of the offeree, and 14 M.R.S.A. § 1502-D does not dictate a contrary result.
[¶ 10] Rule 68 provides that “the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer” if the judgment obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the pretrial offer. The plain language of the rule makes an award of costs mandatory; the court has no discretion to excuse the offer-ee’s obligation pursuant to the Rule. United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp.,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. AugustSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Mallory v. EyrichCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Trident Seafoods Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Batchelder v. TweedieSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
- Gary P. Johnston v. Penrod Drilling CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.