From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hale v. Antoniou

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Apr 15, 2003
820 A.2d 586 (Me. 2003)

Opinion

Docket Cum-02-567.

Argued: January 14, 2003.

Decided: April 15, 2003.

Appealed from the Superior Court, Cumberland County, Humphrey, J.

Michael J. Waxman, Esq., (orally), Portland, Attorney for plaintiffs,

Peter J. DeTroy, Esq., Russell B. Pierce Jr., Esq., (orally), Norman, Hanson DeTroy, LLC, Portland, Attorney for defendant.

Panel: CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.


Demetri Antoniou appeals from an order entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Humphrey, J.) denying his motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay judicial proceedings. The underlying action involves claims Michael and Edie Hale brought on behalf of their son, Jordan, against Antoniou for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil assault. Antoniou asserts that the Superior Court erred in concluding that USA Hockey Inc.'s arbitration procedure did not govern the Hales' claims. Because the Court is evenly divided, we affirm the judgment.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Hale v. Antoniou

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Apr 15, 2003
820 A.2d 586 (Me. 2003)
Case details for

Hale v. Antoniou

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HALE et al. v. DEMETRI ANTONIOU

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date published: Apr 15, 2003

Citations

820 A.2d 586 (Me. 2003)
2003 Me. 52

Citing Cases

State v. Thongsavanh

Because the Court is evenly divided on this issue, we affirm the trial court's jury instructions. See Hale v.…

R.C. Moore v. Les-Care Kitchens

Because we are evenly divided on this issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment on this issue. See State v.…