Dillon v. Johnson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
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
- In Re RichardsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1966
- City of Hutchinson v. HUTCHINSON, OFF. OF ST. EMP. SERVSupreme Court of Kansas · 1973
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Inhabitants of Presque IsleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1954
- Look v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
- Young v. JohnsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Berry v. DaigleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
- Brann v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
- Worth v. CIV. SERVICE COM'N OF EL DORADOSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
- Sanders v. SandersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. City of WestbrookSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.