MacDonald v. Fullerton

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCK~T N~: S~-O?f9c

BRIAN MACDONALD,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER

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).