Robert M. Cote v. Donald R. Cote et al. (Errata)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Errata. Go to corrected Opinion
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2016 ME 94 Docket: Yor-15-351 Argued: April 7, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016 Corrected: November 3, 2016 Panel: Reporter of Decisions SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. ROBERT M. COTE v. DONALD R. COTE et al. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court certified on June 28, 2016, is amended as follows: The last sentence of paragraph 21 is amended to read as follows: However, the court concluded that Robert failed to show that any particular actions by Donald, Angela, and PriscillaPriscille were the “but for” cause that deprived him of an expectancy; the court noted that the affidavits in support of the statements of material fact were insufficient because they relied largely upon on inadmissible hearsay and were ambiguous as to whether the assertions were actually based on personal knowledge. The original opinion on the Judicial Branch website has been replaced with the opinion as corrected.
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.
