Legal Opinion

Dillon v. Johnson

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 11, 1974PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARCHIBALD, Justice.

This is a complaint brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. 1 The purpose of the complaint was to seek a declaration that the “enforcement of the 10-year residency requirement embodied in 36 M.R.S.A. § 653, subd. 1(F)(1) 2 is a de nial of plaintiff’s constitutional rights [sic] to travel and to be afforded the due process and the equal protection of the laws.” Since there was no disagreement on the facts, the parties agreed to a report to the Law Court pursuant to Rule 72(b), M.R. C.P., for such final decision as the rights of the parties may require,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re RichardsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1966
  2. City of Hutchinson v. HUTCHINSON, OFF. OF ST. EMP. SERVSupreme Court of Kansas · 1973
  3. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Inhabitants of Presque IsleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1954
  4. Look v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
  5. Young v. JohnsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1965

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Berry v. DaigleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
  2. Brann v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  3. Worth v. CIV. SERVICE COM'N OF EL DORADOSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
  4. Sanders v. SandersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998
  5. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. City of WestbrookSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984

8 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