Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 407 (2026)

Decisions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Conditional approval or denial. Every agency shall make a written record of every decision involving the conditional approval or denial of an application, license, certificate or any other type of permit. The agency shall set forth in the record the reason or reasons for its decision and make finding of the fact, in writing, sufficient to appraise the applicant and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision. A written record or a copy thereof shall be kept by the agency and made available to any interested member of the public who may wish to review it.

[PL 1975, c. 758 (NEW).]

2. Dismissal or refusal to renew contract. Every agency shall make a written record of every decision involving the dismissal or the refusal to renew the contract of any public official, employee or appointee. The agency shall, except in case of probationary employees, set forth in the record the reason or reasons for its decision and make findings of fact, in writing, sufficient to apprise the individual concerned and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision. A written record or a copy thereof must be kept by the agency and made available to any interested member of the public who may wish to review it.

[PL 2009, c. 240, §3 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 758 (NEW). PL 2009, c. 240, §3 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Yusem v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61 (Me. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Yusem v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “[¶ 16] We next address Yusem’s allegation that the Commissioners’ decision violates the Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989). A party alleging a violation of the Freedom of Access Act bears the burden of presenting probative evidence before the Superior Court…”

Peter Beckford v. Town of Clifton, 2014 ME 156 (Me. 2014). · cites it 6× “[¶33] The Freedom of Access Act specifies that, when any agency conditionally approves or denies any permit, the agency “shall set forth in the record the reason or reasons for its decision and make finding[s] of the fact, in writing, sufficient to appraise the applicant and any…”

Gorham v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2011 ME 63 (Me. 2011). · cites it 3× “1 M.R.S. § 407(2) (2010). [¶ 18] FOAA is silent as to whether an agency is required to send its written decision to the parties to the proceedings, but common sense and basic fairness suggest that agencies should be so required.”

York v. Town of Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 4404 (1996 & Supp 2000) 11 are both inadequate and based on insufficient evidence pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989). 12 We disagree.”

Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “*419 [¶ 57] Despite our direction in the prior remand, the Superior Court found that the Board's rambling narrative did not permit meaningful appellate review.”

Schwartz v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2006 ME 41 (Me. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 9061 (2005); 1 M.R.S. § 407(1) (2005); Hannum v. Bd. of Envtl.”

Widewaters Stillwater Co. v. Bangor Area Citizens Organized for Responsible Dev., 2002 ME 27 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989); see also 30-A M.”

Cook v. Lisbon Sch. Comm., 682 A.2d 672 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “The basic purpose of the Freedom of Access Act, as expressed in its introductory section, is to protect the public’s right to obtain information about their government and governmental policies, to know what their government is doing, and to prevent the mischief of arbitrary and…”

Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001). “” 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1), (2)' (1989). There is no question that the findings in this case fail to meet *839 that requirement.”

Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135 (Me. 2003). “” 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989). Because the Limogeses’ application was approved with conditions, specific findings were required by both statutes.”

Chapel Road Assocs., L.L.C. v. Town of Wells, 2001 ME 178 (Me. 2001). “” 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989). [¶ 12] The Board’s findings in the instant case neither meet the requirements of the ordinance or statute nor are they sufficient to permit judicial review.”

Quintal v. City of Hallowell, 2008 ME 155 (Me. 2008). · cites it 2× “1 M.R.S. § 407(2) (2007). [¶ 32] The Personnel Committee voted unanimously to terminate Quintal.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 407(1) — 20 cases

Yusem v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61 (Me. 2001). “[¶ 16] We next address Yusem’s allegation that the Commissioners’ decision violates the Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989). A party alleging a violation of the Freedom of Access Act bears the burden of presenting probative evidence before the Superior Court…”

Peter Beckford v. Town of Clifton, 2014 ME 156 (Me. 2014). “[¶33] The Freedom of Access Act specifies that, when any agency conditionally approves or denies any permit, the agency “shall set forth in the record the reason or reasons for its decision and make finding[s] of the fact, in writing, sufficient to appraise the applicant and any…”

York v. Town of Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53 (Me. 2001). “§ 4404 (1996 & Supp 2000) 11 are both inadequate and based on insufficient evidence pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989). 12 We disagree.”

Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009). “*419 [¶ 57] Despite our direction in the prior remand, the Superior Court found that the Board's rambling narrative did not permit meaningful appellate review.”

Schwartz v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2006 ME 41 (Me. 2006). “§ 9061 (2005); 1 M.R.S. § 407(1) (2005); Hannum v. Bd. of Envtl.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 407(2) — 6 cases

Gorham v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2011 ME 63 (Me. 2011). “1 M.R.S. § 407(2) (2010). [¶ 18] FOAA is silent as to whether an agency is required to send its written decision to the parties to the proceedings, but common sense and basic fairness suggest that agencies should be so required.”

Quintal v. City of Hallowell, 2008 ME 155 (Me. 2008). “1 M.R.S. § 407(2) (2007). [¶ 32] The Personnel Committee voted unanimously to terminate Quintal.”

Cook v. Lisbon Sch. Comm., 682 A.2d 672 (Me. 1996). “The basic purpose of the Freedom of Access Act, as expressed in its introductory section, is to protect the public’s right to obtain information about their government and governmental policies, to know what their government is doing, and to prevent the mischief of arbitrary and…”

Tempesta v. Town of Benton (Me. Super. Ct 2019).

Crawford v. City of Westbrook (D. Me. 2024).

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.