Hourihan v. Mahoney

203 A.2d 278, 160 Me. 260, 1964 Me. LEXIS 34
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedSeptember 23, 1964
StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.2d 278 (Hourihan v. Mahoney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hourihan v. Mahoney, 203 A.2d 278, 160 Me. 260, 1964 Me. LEXIS 34 (Me. 1964).

Opinion

[261]*261Appeal from dismissal of petition for writ of mandamus against the Insurance Commissioner certified to the Law Court under R. S., c. 129, § 17, et seq.

The single justice in substance concluded (1) that the petitioner asserted an alleged claim against the Life Insurance Company; (2) that R. S., c. 60, § 62, provided a right of action on such a claim; (3) that the Insurance Commissioner was under no duty to entertain or to hold a hearing upon the claim; and (4) that if the petition was to be considered not as a mandamus petition but as an appeal from a decision of the Insurance Commissioner, it was filed after the expiration of the thirty-day period. R. S., c. 60, § 350.

As the single justice said, in dismissing the petition, “Mandamus is an extraordinary measure and a remedy to be employed only where there is no other legal resource and where the process will be effective. Dorcourt Co. v. Great Northern Paper Co., 146 Me. 344; Steves v. Robie, 139 Me. 359.”

The entry will be

Appeal denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dorcourt Co. v. Great Northern Paper Co.
81 A.2d 662 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1951)
Steves v. Robie
31 A.2d 797 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.2d 278, 160 Me. 260, 1964 Me. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hourihan-v-mahoney-me-1964.