Legal Opinion

Maddocks v. Giles

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided April 26, 1999PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCalkins, J.

[¶ 1] Sewall and Janice Maddocks appeal from the entry of judgment in the Superior Court (Lincoln County, Bradford, J.) after a jury verdict finding that Elbridge Giles’ excavation activities on his land did not interfere with the flow of an underground watercourse benefitting the Maddoekses’ land. The Mad-dockses argue that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the absolute dominion rule, and they' urge us to adopt a new rule governing groundwater usage. We decline to adopt a new rule, and we affirm the judgment.

[¶ 2] The Maddoekses own property adjacent to a gravel pit owned by…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. City of Pasadena v. City of AlhambraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Myrick v. JamesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982
  3. Rothrauff Et Ux. v. Sinking Spr. W. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  4. State v. Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Friendswood Development Co. v. Smith-Southwest Industries, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Spear T Ranch, Inc. v. KnaubNebraska Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Estate of Paul R. Galipeau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2016
  4. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API