Legal Opinion

Department of Environmental Protection v. Woodman

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 22, 1997PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUDMAN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Charles Woodman and Roger Woodman appeal, pro se, from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Knox County, Mills, J.) finding them in violation of 38 M.R.S.A § 480-C (1989 & Supp.1996) and requiring them to perform certain remedial work on the site of the violation. The Wood-mans contend that the court exceeded the bounds of its discretion when it relied on the testimony of an environmental expert engaged by the court because the expert did not visit the site of the violation, and further that the expert was biased in favor of the Department of Environmental…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Milliken v. BuswellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1973
  2. Maietta v. International Harvester Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985
  3. Town of Pownal v. EmersonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  4. Monopoly, Inc. v. AldrichSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  5. Uotinen v. HallSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Tomer v. Maine Human Rights CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008
  2. Ackerman v. YatesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2004
  3. John P. Thurlow v. Zakia C. NelsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2021
  4. In Re Soriah B.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010
  5. Coombs v. GrindleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API