Jon D. Levy

Hackett v. Western Express, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011-06-23 · cited 7×

In Hackett v. Western Express, Inc., a truck driver appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer’s award of partial incapacity benefits after he aggravated a preexisting back injury on the job. The hearing officer had calculated average weekly wage by excluding nine cents per mile designated as per diem pay, which the employer stated was meant to cover lodging, meals, and similar road expenses, and the driver argued this exclusion was error under the governing statute. The court affirmed the exclusion, holding that 39-A M.R.S. § 102(4)(F) directs that sums paid to cover special expenses incurred by the nature of employment are not included in average weekly wage, and that the payments here qualified as such even without receipts or spending restrictions. It distinguished prior precedent involving statutorily designated compensation and rejected the alternative argument that the payments were fringe benefits. The court remanded solely for recalculation of the value of the driver’s health and dental insurance fringe benefits using the correct regulatory formula.

labor & employment

Flaherty v. Muther

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011-03-22 · cited 7×

This case arose from a long-running property dispute between neighboring landowners over an easement, including issues like a gate and surveillance cameras. After the trial court awarded the J-Lot owners attorney fees under M.R. Civ. P. 37(c) for expenses tied to the appellants' denials of requests for admission, Muther and Woods appealed the fee order while the main case was still pending. The Law Court vacated the fee award, holding that the trial court could consider the Rule 37(c) attorney-fee request during the appeal under M.R. App. P. 3(b) and M.R. Civ. P. 54(b)(3), but that remand of the underlying judgment in the related Flaherty I appeal could alter the factual basis and prevailing-party determination, so the fee request must be reconsidered after final judgment.

propertyprocedure

Farrell v. City of Auburn

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010-08-31 · cited 10×

The case involved Michael Farrell, who owns property in Auburn's Rural Residence zoning district, challenging a Notice of Violation/Order to Correct issued by the city's Code Enforcement Officer for issues like unregistered vehicles, scrap materials, and dilapidated structures on his land. Farrell appealed the NOV to the Auburn Board of Appeals, which affirmed it, and then sought judicial review in Superior Court under M.R. Civ. P. 80B. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue a binding decision on the NOV under the relevant city ordinances, rendering its ruling advisory in nature and not subject to Rule 80B review. The court vacated the Superior Court's judgment affirming the Board and remanded with instructions to dismiss the 80B claim while allowing other pending independent claims to proceed. The decision turned on statutory and ordinance interpretation regarding the scope of appeals to the Board and the non-binding effect of its determinations on enforcement actions.

propertyprocedure

SALEM CAPITAL GROUP, LLC v. Litchfield

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010-06-01 · cited 5×

State v. Murphy

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010-03-25 · cited 20×

Guardianship of Jewel M.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010-03-09 · cited 13×

Affiliations

Decision record

Jon D. Levy

Decision record

Affiliations