Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lydon v. Sprinkler Servicesgreen2 sentences2024See Lydon v. Sprinkler Servs., 2004 ME 16, ¶ 15 , 841 A.2d 793 (invalidating a rule promulgated by the Worker’s Compensation Board because it was inconsistent with the relevant statute). [¶26] Title 5 M.R.S. § 8058 (2023) permits judicial review of an agency rule in any civil or criminal proceeding. 2024See Lydon v. Sprinkler Servs., 2004 ME 16, ¶ 15 , 841 A.2d 793 (invalidating a rule promulgated by the Worker’s Compensation Board because it was inconsistent with the relevant statute). [¶26] Title 5 M.R.S. § 8058 (2023) permits judicial review of an agency rule in any civil or criminal proceeding. | 2 | 2 |
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.green1 sentence2014See Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. at 60 n. appropriate level or steps by the State's Affirmative Action Officer. | 1 | 1 |
Associated Fisheries of Maine, Inc. v. Daleygreen1 sentence2000Associated Fisheries of Me., Inc., v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104, 109 (1st Cir. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daniel E. Mutty v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2018DOC subsequently moved us to vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand on the ground that the record did not indicate the date that Sweeney received notice of the dismissal of his grievance by the grievance review officer, and therefore, on the authority of Mutty v. Department of Corrections, 2017 ME 7 , 153 A.3d 775 , “[t]he Superior Court’s decision to dismiss the petition was not supported by the record.” We denied the motion, indicating that it was clear Sweeney was challenging the legality of the DOC rule itself, not DOC’s action in denying his grievance. 2018DOC subsequently moved us to vacate the trial court's judgment and remand on the ground that the record did not indicate the date that Sweeney received notice of the dismissal of his grievance by the grievance review officer, and therefore, on the authority of Mutty v. Department of Corrections , 2017 ME 7 , 153 A.3d 775 , "[t]he Superior Court's decision to dismiss the petition was not supported by the record." We denied the motion, indicating that it was clear Sweeney was challenging the legality of the DOC rule itself, not DOC's action in denying his grievance. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Mutty v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2018DOC subsequently moved us to vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand on the ground that the record did not indicate the date that Sweeney received notice of the dismissal of his grievance by the grievance review officer, and therefore, on the authority of Mutty v. Department of Corrections, 2017 ME 7 , 153 A.3d 775 , “[t]he Superior Court’s decision to dismiss the petition was not supported by the record.” We denied the motion, indicating that it was clear Sweeney was challenging the legality of the DOC rule itself, not DOC’s action in denying his grievance. 2018DOC subsequently moved us to vacate the trial court's judgment and remand on the ground that the record did not indicate the date that Sweeney received notice of the dismissal of his grievance by the grievance review officer, and therefore, on the authority of Mutty v. Department of Corrections , 2017 ME 7 , 153 A.3d 775 , "[t]he Superior Court's decision to dismiss the petition was not supported by the record." We denied the motion, indicating that it was clear Sweeney was challenging the legality of the DOC rule itself, not DOC's action in denying his grievance. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection
green
2 sentences2023Consistent with the terms of Section 8058, the Law Court has approached rulemaking challenges in three steps: (1) <If the rule exceeds the rule-making authority of the agency, it [will be deemed] invalid=; (2) <If a rule does not exceed the rule-making authority, the court next reviews 8any other procedural error9 related to the promulgation of the rule=; and (3) <if the rule is procedurally correct and within the agency's rule-making authority, it is reviewed substantively 8to determine whether the rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.9 2023Consistent with the terms of Section 8058, the Law Court has approached rulemaking challenges in three steps: (1) <If the rule exceeds the rule-making authority of the agency, it [will be deemed] invalid=; (2) <If a rule does not exceed the rule-making authority, the court next reviews 8any other procedural error9 related to the promulgation of the rule=; and (3) <if the rule is procedurally correct and within the agency's rule-making authority, it is reviewed substantively 8to determine whether the rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.9 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Green v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services
green
1 sentence2014The Law Court emphasized that it was the Commissioner's findings, not those of the hearing officer, that were subject to review for clear error. 2001 ME 86 ~ 12. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Thacker v. Konover Development Corp.
green
2 sentences2012Its silence on that issue, combined with the undeniable plain language in § 10, leads this Court to conclude that the applicable language "plainly compels a contrary result." Thacker, 2003 ME 30 , ~ 14, 818 A.2d 1013 . 8 The Court is persuaded that the Note after § 10 does not have the full import of an agency rule. 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(9)(B)(4). 8 Respondents' attempt to downplay the plans for future expansion is unavailing. 2012Its silence on that issue, combined with the undeniable plain language in § 10, leads this Court to conclude that the applicable language "plainly compels a contrary result." Thacker, 2003 ME 30 , ~ 14, 818 A.2d 1013 . 8 The Court is persuaded that the Note after § 10 does not have the full import of an agency rule. 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(9)(B)(4). 8 Respondents' attempt to downplay the plans for future expansion is unavailing. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Spencer v. V.I.P., Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Spcncer v. V.I.?, fnc., 2006 ME 120 , err 6, 910 A.2d 366, 367 . 2010Spcncer v. V.I.?, fnc., 2006 ME 120 , err 6, 910 A.2d 366, 367 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.