The significance of the att v city of portland case

Main sources of income retirement and alimony. Donna Ellen Newsome Loren Parker-Jackson Ethel Anderson Mymbs No No I begin any project by identifying the goal s and the strategies required to achieve them and then I put the talent in position s that best fits their skill level s and expertise, to get the goals accomplished.

The significance of the att v city of portland case

December 12, Decided: June 1, Panel: Donovan contends that the court erred when it held that the public building exception to the Maine Tort Claims Act, id.

November 14, - Portland City Council approve the settlement agreement in U.S. v City of Portland. [44] November 28, - Portland City Council extends a tax on land-line phone service providers to cover the costs of police reforms stemming from the settlement of U.S. v City of Portland. Click the cells in the top row of the table to display opinions by case title, case number, case type, case code and date filed. Please contact the clerk's office at for Published Opinions posted before January 3, Case Summary and Outcome. In July , the City Council of Portland, Maine passed an ordinance prohibiting any person to “stand, sit, stay, drive or park on a median strip except that pedestrians may use median strips only in the course of crossing from one side of the street to the other.”.

Because we conclude that the Maine Tort Claims Act bars this action, we affirm the judgment. A genuine issue of material fact exists when sufficient evidence supports a factual contest requiring a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the truth through a trial.

Donovan arrived at the school at 5: At that time it was dark and foggy. She parked in the U-shaped driveway in front of the main entrance, and began walking toward an entrance. While walking toward the entrance, Donovan fell and injured her arm. She had not reached the school building or its stairs when she fell.

Donovan opposed the motion and filed an opposing statement of additional facts in which she referred to and included her own affidavit. The affidavit stated that there were six lights attached to the school at or near the entrance, but at her earlier deposition, Donovan had insisted that she did not remember how many lights were on the building.

The significance of the att v city of portland case

Donovan then brought this appeal. Nor does she contend that her injuries were occasioned by a defect in the sidewalk or parking area itself. City of Calais, A. An exception to governmental immunity applies when a governmental entity is negligent in "the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building.

Thus, according to Donovan, although the City is immune from liability for any defect in the area where she fell, when it attached lighting to the public building, it became responsible for any deficiency in that lighting, even in areas where immunity otherwise applied. City of Lewiston, A.

There, the plaintiff fell on the poorly lit curb between the walkway and parking area near a public building. She alleged that she fell because of the inadequate exterior lighting of the building.

We were called upon to determine whether the City of Lewiston had waived its immunity by maintaining insurance coverage. Thus, we unequivocally concluded in Swallow that the lighting over the walkway did not fall within the appurtenance provision of the public building exception.

Washington County Technical College, F. The fire lane in that case provided the sole passageway to the second-floor apartments where the plaintiff lived. Although lights on poles along the lane had once illuminated the lane, lights attached to the residence hall had replaced them. When the plaintiff slipped and fell on the lane, she sought compensation from the college, claiming the lights on the building failed to illuminate the lane properly.

The District Court held, and the First Circuit agreed, that because the college was immune from liability for any defects in the lane, its liability could not be expanded by assertions of inadequate lighting, even where the lighting was attached to a public building.

If we were to hold otherwise, municipalities would be exposed to litigation in an increasing radius around any outdoor lighting that the municipalities might provide to ensure that stairs and other building appurtenances remain safe.

Such a holding would run counter to the strict statutory construction required in interpreting the governmental immunity statutes.

Any claimed error in that regard is harmless. At the summary judgment stage, however, our precedents hold that Donovan can defeat a summary judgment and proceed to trial simply by pointing to unresolved disputes as to material facts.

The public buildings exception specifies that any governmental entity, including the City, "is liable for its negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building.

On this evidence, there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the lights attached to the building, not being illuminated after dark, may have been negligently operated or maintained. With disputes as to material facts remaining as to these three elements, the Maine Tort Claims Act requires nothing more to state a cause of action, sufficient to defeat summary judgment, under the public buildings exception.

The significance of the att v city of portland case

She maintained that the area was inadequately lit. The City of Lewiston argued that the courts should have applied a statute in existence at that time, which indicated that the government was not liable for defects in sidewalks.

We held that the sidewalk statute did not apply because "[i]nsufficient lighting is not a defect in the sidewalk.

Three times in the last eight years we have held that defects in or negligent operation of equipment in or appurtenant to a public building can support a claim for collateral injuries caused by the improperly functioning equipment, even where the equipment itself does not physically cause the injury.

City of Portland, MEA. Town of Standish, A. Town of Kittery, A. Accordingly, the public buildings exception to the Maine Tort Claims Act applies, the City is not immune from liability, and summary judgment should not have been granted.

Swallow does not create such a bar. It was pled and presented under a different statute with different contested issues.Nature of the Case. This is a federal suit brought by AT&T and TCI, a cable company which AT&T has acquired, for a declaratory judgment that the City of Portland and the County of Multnomah illegally refused to grant AT&T/TCI's request for change of control.

Case Summary and Outcome.

Duncanville City Council, District 4

In July , the City Council of Portland, Maine passed an ordinance prohibiting any person to “stand, sit, stay, drive or park on a median strip except that pedestrians may use median strips only in the course of crossing from one side of the street to the other.”.

This case does not resemble Allis-Chalmers, in which the Court held that Wisconsin's tort of bad-faith handling of an insurance claim was preempted because Wisconsin's law defined good faith in terms of obligations contained in the CBA.

About this Voter Guide. Our Voter Guide for the May 7 municipal and ISD elections allows you to compare candidates in key contested races and their responses to issues side-by-side and to create your own ballot, which you can print or e-mail.

AT&T CORP. V. CITY OF PORTLAND By Christopher K Ridder Distinctions between cable and telephone service are blurring because of a phenomenon known as convergence. Convergence is a long sought-after achievement that is beginning to come to fruition: providers of cable.

HANNAH O'TOOLE. v. CITY OF PORTLAND. LEVY, J. [¶9] This case involves a request for a practical difficulty variance.

and the action is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a judgment affirming the decision of .

Summary: AT&T v. City of Portland.