Bodge v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System

Full title: RANDY BODGE, Petitioner v. MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM…

Court: Superior Court of Maine

Date published: May 31, 2017

AP-16-04 (Me. Super. May. 31, 2017)

Opinion

AP-16-04

05-31-2017

RANDY BODGE, Petitioner v. MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent

Plaintiffs Attorney Richard M. Goldman, Esq. Defendant's Attorney Christopher L. Mann, AAG. Petition for Review by Goldman, Esq. Entry of Appearance of attorney for the Defendant Christopher L. Mann, AAG. Appellant Brief filed by Richard M. Goldman, Esq. Reply Brief filed by Richard M Goldman, Esq.

DANIEL I. BILLINGS, JUSTICE

Plaintiffs Attorney Richard M. Goldman, Esq.

Defendant's Attorney Christopher L. Mann, AAG.

Petition for Review by Goldman, Esq.

Entry of Appearance of attorney for the Defendant Christopher L. Mann, AAG.

Appellant Brief filed by Richard M. Goldman, Esq.

Reply Brief filed by Richard M Goldman, Esq.

ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER

DANIEL I. BILLINGS, JUSTICE

The Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. As noted by the Respondent in its opposition to the motion, whether or not to hold oral argument is left to the discretion of the court¹. In matters of this type, the court's consideration is limited to the record and the law. The matter was well briefed and the law is well established. After consideration of the briefs and the record, the court concluded that oral argument would not assist the court in resolving this matter.

1 By issuing a decision on the petition without oral argument, the court has otherwise directed that oral argument will not be conducted, as allowed by Rule 80C.