Legal Opinion

Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided March 31, 1994PublishedCited by 61 opinions

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

  1. Miller v. FallonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1936
  2. Dobson v. Quinn Freight Lines, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
  3. Michaud v. Northern Maine Medical CenterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  4. Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Construction Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992
  5. 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

  1. Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  2. Kittery Retail Ventures, LLC v. Town of KitterySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2004
  3. Beaulieu v. Maine Medical CenterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  4. Berry v. H.R. Beal & SonsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  5. Mathieu v. Bath Iron WorksSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995

56 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