Johnson v. Lisbon Falls Baptist Church

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJune 26, 2019
DocketANDcv-18-141
StatusUnpublished

This text of Johnson v. Lisbon Falls Baptist Church (Johnson v. Lisbon Falls Baptist Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Lisbon Falls Baptist Church, (Me. Super. Ct. 2019).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-18-141 NORMAN JOHNSON, JR., ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S v. ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ) LISBON FALLS BAPTIST CHURCH, ) ) Defendant. )

Before the Court is Lisbon Fall Baptist Church's ("LFBC") motion for

reconsideration. LFBC specifically asks the Court to reconsider its denial of LFBC's

motion for summary judgment on Count I of Mr. Johnson's complaint regarding owner

or occupier liability. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

Motions for reconsideration may only be utilized "to bring to the court's attention

an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R.

Civ. P. 7(b)(5). "Rule 7(b )(5) is intended to deter disappointed litigants from seeking 'to

reargue points that were or could have been presented to the court on the underlying

motion."' Shaw v. Shaw, 2003 ME 153, 'l[ 8, 839 A.2d 714 (citing M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5)

advisory committee's note to 2000 amend.). A motion for reconsideration need not be

granted "unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has been committed or that

substantial justice has not been done.... The burden of showing harmful error rests on

the [moving] party." Cates v. Farrington, 423 A.2d 539, 541 (Me. 1980).

LFBC's motion offers no new material that was not or could not previously have

been presented, but merely reasserts the arguments made in its motion for summary

judgment, and the Court is not persuaded that it was error to allow Mr. Johnson to

proceed on Count I of his complaint. The record is not without evidence that could

1 of 2 support a finding in favor of Mr. Johnson on Count I. LFBC may raise its arguments again

before the jury.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Lisbon Falls Baptist Church's Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference

pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).

Dated: --W+-~l.u..s,.J~'+--l-/;.,.__9_ Mary Main

2 of 2

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

Related

Shaw v. Shaw
2003 ME 153 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2003)
Cates v. Farrington
423 A.2d 539 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. Lisbon Falls Baptist Church, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-lisbon-falls-baptist-church-mesuperct-2019.