Case Name: Phillip M. GREENE and Constance C. Greene v. WELBOCO, INC. OF MAINE d/b/a WCOU and David P. Welborne
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1983-06-09
Citations: 460 A.2d 1378
Docket Number: 
Parties: Phillip M. GREENE and Constance C. Greene v. WELBOCO, INC. OF MAINE d/b/a WCOU and David P. Welborne.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C.J., and GODFREY, NICHOLS, ROBERTS, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 460
Pages: 1378–1379

Head Matter:
Phillip M. GREENE and Constance C. Greene v. WELBOCO, INC. OF MAINE d/b/a WCOU and David P. Welborne.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued May 11, 1983.
Decided June 9, 1983.
Skelton, Taintor, Abbott & Orestis, Charles H. Abbott (orally), Lewiston, for plaintiffs.
Clifford, Clifford, Samp & Stone, Frederick S. Samp (orally), Lewiston, for defendants.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and GODFREY, NICHOLS, ROBERTS, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Defendants appeal from a judgment entered against them following a jury trial in Superior Court, Androscoggin County, to determine whether they were entitled to set-offs against plaintiffs' claims. We affirm the judgment.
First, defendants contend that the presiding justice improperly excluded testimony about the operating capacity of a radio transmitter as not constituting proper rebuttal. The presiding justice's determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal must be paid considerable deference on appeal, as "he alone has the opportunity to assess the evidence with the benefit of having heard the testimony sought to be rebutted and of observing the way it went in before the jury." Payson v. Bombardier, Ltd., 435 A.2d 411, 413 (Me.1981). On our review of the record, we find no error in the presiding justice's ruling.
Defendants also argue that the presiding justice erred in refusing to permit them to question one of their expert witnesses about the transmitter's compliance with FCC regulations. The record, however, again reveals no error in the presiding justice's ruling.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.