Case Name: SOUTH PORTLAND SHIPYARD and MARINE RAILWAY CORP. v. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND, et al.
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1990-10-17
Citations: 581 A.2d 414
Docket Number: 
Parties: SOUTH PORTLAND SHIPYARD and MARINE RAILWAY CORP. v. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND, et al.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and BRODY, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 581
Pages: 414–415

Head Matter:
SOUTH PORTLAND SHIPYARD and MARINE RAILWAY CORP. v. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND, et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Submitted on Briefs Oct. 4, 1990.
Decided Oct. 17, 1990.
E. Stephen Murray, Murray, Plumb & Murray, Portland, for plaintiff.
Ellen Egan George, South Portland, for defendants.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and BRODY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
South Portland Shipyard and Marine Railway Corp. ("the Shipyard") appeals from the dismissal in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Perkins, J.) of its M.R.Civ.P. 80B appeal of a decision of the South Portland Board of Appeals. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the case for want of prosecution, finding no excusable neglect when the Shipyard failed to file its brief and the record for nearly six months after the deadline imposed by M.R.Civ.P. 80B(g). Kirkpatrick v. City of Bangor, 517 A.2d 320 (Me.1986); Haskell v. Phinney, 460 A.2d 1354 (Me.1983). Because the Shipyard could not reasonably have expected to prevail in this appeal, we assess sanctions for a frivolous appeal as authorized by M.R.Civ.P. 76(f). Kirkpatrick, 517 A.2d at 321-322.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Defendants are awarded treble costs and $500 toward their attorney fees.
All concurring.