Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 302 (2026)

Construction and effect of repealing and amending Acts

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The repeal of an Act, resolve or municipal ordinance passed after the 4th day of March, 1870 does not revive any statute or ordinance in force before the Act, resolve or ordinance took effect. The repeal or amendment of an Act or ordinance does not affect any punishment, penalty or forfeiture incurred before the repeal or amendment takes effect, or any action or proceeding pending at the time of the repeal or amendment, for an offense committed or for recovery of a penalty or forfeiture incurred under the Act or ordinance repealed or amended. Actions and proceedings pending at the time of the passage, amendment or repeal of an Act or ordinance are not affected thereby. For the purposes of this section, a proceeding shall include but not be limited to petitions or applications for licenses or permits required by law at the time of their filing. For the purposes of this section and regardless of any other action taken by the reviewing authority, an application for a license or permit required by law at the time of its filing shall be considered to be a pending proceeding when the reviewing authority has conducted at least one substantive review of the application and not before. For the purposes of this section, a substantive review of an application for a license or permit required by law at the time of application shall consist of a review of that application to determine whether it complies with the review criteria and other applicable requirements of law. [PL 1987, c. 766, §1 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1967, c. 10 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 146 (RPR). PL 1987, c. 766, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 110 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: State v. Shepley, 2003 ME 70 (Me. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Shepley, 2003 ME 70 (Me. 2003). · cites it 6× “1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1989); [6] Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp.”

Kittery Retail Ventures, LLC v. Town of Kittery, 2004 ME 65 (Me. 2004). · cites it 3× “[¶ 6] On September 26, 2000, the voters approved another amendment to the zoning ordinance, which mirrored the language of the June zoning ordinance amendment, but added the following language: Notwithstanding the provisions of 1 M.R.S.A. § 302, and regardless of the date on…”

Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1989) (stating, "[a]ctions and proceedings pending at the time of the passage, amendment or repeal of an Act or ordinance are not affected thereby”).”

Larrivee v. Timmons, 549 A.2d 744 (Me. 1988). · cites it 6× “This case raises the question, novel to us, whether the steps for obtaining multiple land use approvals from different administrative agencies operating under different ordinances or statutes are all part of a single “proceeding” for purposes of the *745 grandfathering provision…”

Smith v. Town of Pittston, 2003 ME 46 (Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “See 1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1989). [8] For the purposes of section 302, we have determined that an application is "pending" when a "municipality takes the threshold step of acting on the substance of a proposal.”

York Hosp. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2008 ME 165 (Me. 2008). · cites it 3× “1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1989). A “proceeding” includes, but is not limited to, petitions or applications for licenses or permits required by law at the time of their filing.”

Fisherman's Wharf Assocs. II v. Verrill & Dana, 645 A.2d 1133 (Me. 1994). · cites it 5× “With reference to 1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1989), 2 the letter continued: Regardless of the above provisions, it appears that any application for site plan approval pending at the passage of the initiative would be “grandfathered” under the current zoning ordinance because of the…”

Morrissette v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 2003 ME 138 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “The *127 rule with respect to pending proceedings is not a constitutional mandate, but a rule of statutory construction set out in 1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1989). 7 See Riley, 639 A.”

City of Portland v. Fisherman's Wharf Assocs. II, 541 A.2d 160 (Me. 1988). · cites it 4× “FWA II answered and counterclaimed, asserting that the provisions of 1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1979) prohibited the application of the initiated ordinance to its project and requesting the court to order the City and its agencies to issue and deliver the building permit (Counts I & II).”

State of Maine v. Ralph A. Tripp Jr., 2024 ME 12 (Me. 2024). · cites it 3× “When an action is pending and a statute applicable to that action is amended, “the legislatively created rule of construction set forth in 1 M.R.S. § 302 (2023) applies.” State v. Beeler, 2022 ME 47 , ¶ 1 n.”

George D. Ballard, Builder, Inc. v. City of Westbrook, 502 A.2d 476 (Me. 1985). · cites it 3× “On appeal, the plaintiff contends, first, that its approved application was a pending proceeding protected by 1 M.R.S.A. § 302 (1979); second, the forfeiture provision of the Ordinance is invalid on its face and is a standardless delegation of power; third, the amendment to the…”

Brenda L. Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 2016 ME 45 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 1 M.R.S. § 302 (2015) ("Actions and proceedings pending at the time of the passage, amendment or repeal of an Act or ordinance are not affected thereby.”

Show all 110 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.