Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the Court
RUDMAN, Justice.
In this consolidated appeal, we are asked to determine whether in Title 39-A of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, the Legislature’s intent to affect petitions pending on the effective date of the Act is clear and unequivocal. 39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 101-909 (Supp.1993) (enacted by P.L.1991, ch. 885 (effective January 1, 1993)). Both Danny Riley 1 and Robert Gagne 2 were injured prior to and had petitions for lump sum payments pending on January 1, 1993, the effective date of Title 39-A. Riley appeals from the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board that section 352 of Title…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miller v. FallonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1936
- Dobson v. Quinn Freight Lines, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- Michaud v. Northern Maine Medical CenterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
- Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Construction Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992
- Norton v. C.P. Blouin, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
- Kittery Retail Ventures, LLC v. Town of KitterySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2004
- Beaulieu v. Maine Medical CenterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
- Berry v. H.R. Beal & SonsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
- Mathieu v. Bath Iron WorksSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.