Legal Opinion
Bolduc v. Pinkham
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided May 13, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMurchie, C. J.
The plaintiff in this Bill in Equity, according to factual allegations carried in his amended process, admitted to be true by defendants’ demurrer, Brown v. Guy Gannett Publishing Co., 147 Me. 3, 82 A. 2d. 797; Lea v. Robeson, 12 Gray, 280; Whitehouse Equity Practice, Sec. 213 (Vol. I, Page 393), is, and has been for a long time, engaged in the bakery business in the City of Waterville, and is the owner of a tract of land therein, having a frontage on Grove Street, which he purchased in 1945 for the express purpose of building a bakery thereon. Additional factual allegations, so admitted, are…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Zahn v. Board of Public WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Morris v. GossSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Payne v. GrahamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
- Toulouse v. Board of Zoning AdjustmentSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- BALLARD, MAYOR, ETC. v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court · 1958
- Wright v. MichaudSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1964
- BALLARD, MAYOR, ETC. v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court · 1958
- Inhabitants of Poland v. Inhabitants of BiddefordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
- Romack v. Public Service Co. of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986