Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)

Citation
Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)
Parent Document
Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)
Jurisdiction
Maine (state)
Effective Date
2004-04-08

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text

450 chars
[¶ 17] Budman challenges the court’s exclusion of the proffered testimony of his former attorney concerning settlement discussions with Union River’s attorney. The court excluded the testimony based on M.R. Evid. 408(a) regarding evidence of compromise or offers to compromise. We review the exclusion of evidence pursuant to Rule 408 for clear error and abuse of discretion. Me. Shipyard & Marine Ry. v. Lilley, 2000 ME 9, ¶ 20, 743 A.2d 1264, 1269.