Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hoitt v. Hall

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 7, 1995Published

1DissentGlassman, Justice

I must respectfully dissent. Contrary to the determination of the trial court and of this Court, the trial court was without authority either by common law rule or by statute to reduce the amount of the damages awarded in the “trial within a trial” by the amount received by Eileen from Thurlow.

The following review of the pertinent common law and statutes discloses that the issue in the present case was foreclosed by the governing common law rules and has only been made possible of presentation by reason of statutory enactments by the Legislature. Prior to the enactment of 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 by…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan Greenberg, Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan GreenbergCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  2. Cleveland v. City of BangorSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1895
  3. Emery Waterhouse Co. v. LeaSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
  4. Werner v. LaneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  5. Sohn v. BernsteinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971

6 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