Legal Opinion

Bourque-Lanigan Post No. 5 v. Carey

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 14, 1952PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMurchie, C. J.

The issue raised by the defendant’s exceptions herein, whereby he seeks to challenge the acceptance of a referee’s report, within the right reserved in the rule of reference, must be resolved, in final analysis, by testing the written objections thereto, filed pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Court, 129 Me. 511. See Brewster v. Churchill, 148 Me. 8, 88 A. 2d. 585, and cases cited therein.

The objections were five in number, but the allegations of error carried in the Bill of Exceptions relate exclusively to the second of them, the substance of which is stated hereafter. It was the election…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Emery v. FowlerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1855
  2. Morrison v. ClarkSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1896
  3. Coombs v. HarfordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1904
  4. Weed v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1925
  5. Libby v. LongSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1928

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Franklin Property Trust v. Foresite, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  2. Nichols v. City of RocklandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
  3. Carey v. CyrSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
  4. Carey v. Bourque-Lanigan Post No. 5Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1954
  5. Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982

1 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