MacDonald v. Fullerton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCK~T N~: S~-O?f9c STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. BRIAN MACDONALD, Plaintiff ORDER v. THOMAS FULLERTON and NORTHEAST CONTROLS, INC., Defendants Following review, but without further hearing, the Defendants' Motion for Additional Findings is Denied. The record contains sufficient written findings to apprise the parties of the Court's rational and to permit effective appellate review. 1 Dated: March 11, 2008 . Arthur Brennan Justice, Supenor Court PLAINTIFFS: Daniel J. Murphy, Esq. Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson PO Box 9729 Portland ME 04104-5029 DEFENDANTS: Timothy Dietz, Esq. Nadeau Law LLC 883 Main Street Suite 1 Sanford ME 04073 It should be noted that while requests for additional findings are explicitly recognized under our rules (Rule 52(b) M.R.Civ.P.), "it is inappropriate to pose interrogatories to the court under the guise of a request for findings." Rice v. Sebasticook Valley Hospital, 487 A.2d 639, at ft.nt. 1,640 (Me. 1985).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
