Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 1

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 409

Appeals

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Records.  Any person aggrieved by a refusal or denial to inspect or copy a record or the failure to allow the inspection or copying of a record under section 408‑A may appeal the refusal, denial or failure within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the written notice of refusal, denial or failure to the Superior Court within the State for the county where the person resides or the agency has its principal office. The agency or official shall file a statement of position explaining the basis for denial within 14 calendar days of service of the appeal. If a court, after a review, with taking of testimony and other evidence as determined necessary, determines such refusal, denial or failure was not for just and proper cause, the court shall enter an order for disclosure. Appeals may be advanced on the docket and receive priority over other cases when the court determines that the interests of justice so require.  
[PL 2015, c. 249, §2 (AMD).]
2.  Actions.  If any body or agency approves any ordinances, orders, rules, resolutions, regulations, contracts, appointments or other official action in an executive session, this action is illegal and the officials responsible are subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. Upon learning of any such action, any person may appeal to any Superior Court in the State. If a court, after a trial de novo, determines this action was taken illegally in an executive session, it shall enter an order providing for the action to be null and void. Appeals may be advanced on the docket and receive priority over other cases when the court determines that the interests of justice so require.  
[PL 2011, c. 559, Pt. A, §2 (AMD).]
3.  Proceedings not exclusive.  The proceedings authorized by this section are not exclusive of any other civil remedy provided by law.  
[PL 2009, c. 240, §6 (AMD).]
4.  Attorney’s fees.  In an appeal under subsection 1 or 2, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to the substantially prevailing plaintiff who appealed the refusal under subsection 1 or the illegal action under subsection 2 if the court determines that the refusal or illegal action was committed in bad faith. Attorney’s fees and litigation costs may not be awarded to or against a federally recognized Indian tribe.  
This subsection applies to appeals under subsection 1 or 2 filed on or after January 1, 2010.  
[PL 2009, c. 423, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 758 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 477, §5 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 695, Pt. C, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 240, §§5, 6 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 423, §1 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 559, Pt. A, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 662, §6 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 350, §3 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 249, §2 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Marcel Dubois v. Office of the Attorney General
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marcel Dubois v. Office of the Attorney General (2018) me · cites it 9× “3 See 1 M.R.S. § 409. On motion filed by OAG, the court issued a scheduling order directing OAG to submit the contested documents under seal for the court’s in camera review and to file with the court, with a copy to Dubois and Fedder, an exceptions log identifying the documents…”
Dubois v. Office of the Attorney Gen. (2018) me · cites it 9× “On motion filed by OAG, the court issued a scheduling order directing OAG to submit the contested documents under seal for the court's in camera review and to file with the court, with a copy to Dubois and Fedder, an exceptions log identifying the documents and the reasons they…”
Town of Burlington v. Hospital Administrative District No. 1 (2001) me · cites it 4× “The first was brought by the Town, pursuant to Maine's Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S.A. § 409 (1989), seeking disclosure of certain records from the hospital parties.”
Colby v. York County Commissioners (1982) me · cites it 6× “Count I includes three claims: (1) denial of public investigation (1 M.R.S.A. § 409); (2) decision based on incompetent evidence (30 M.”
Dubois v. Dep't of Agric., Conservation & Forestry (2018) me · cites it 5× “This appeal was filed before September 1, 2017; therefore, the restyled Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply.”
Lewiston Daily Sun v. School Administrative District No. 43 (1999) me · cites it 4× “[¶ 11] The Freedom of Access Act provides a very narrow choice of remedies in circumstances where violation of its limits on executive sessions are found.”
Marcel Dubois v. Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (2018) me · cites it 4× “Informant Identity Privilege [¶14] We now turn to the merits of Dubois and Fedder’s argument that the court erred by declining to order production of records that DACF claimed 6 As is noted in our opinion in the companion case, see supra n.”
MaineToday Media, Inc. v. State of Maine (2013) me · cites it 2× “[¶ 4] MaineToday petitioned the Superior Court for review of the State’s denial pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 409(1). In March of 2013, after conducting a hearing and an *108 in camera review of the unredacted transcripts and the audio recordings of each E-9-1-1 call in the Pak matter,…”
MacImage of Maine, LLC v. Androscoggin County (2012) me · cites it 2× “[¶ 11] Unsatisfied with the counties’ requested fees, in November 2009, Macl-mage filed a complaint in the Superior Court pursuant to the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S. § 409(1) (2011), and M.R. Civ. P.”
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP v. State Tax Assessor (2014) me · cites it 2× “[¶ 8] After conducting a de novo trial pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 409 and after reviewing the documents in camera, the Superior Court determined that the documents it had reviewed were confidential pursuant to 1 M.”
Marxsen v. Board of Dir., MSAD No. 5 (1991) me · cites it 3× “9 Official action taken at a public proceeding conducted in violation of the Act is voidable by the court pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. § 409(2). 10 Marxsen’s amended complaint alleges: [PJrior to the April 26, 1990 meeting held by the Defendant Board of Directors, one or more members…”
Cyr v. Madawaska School Department (2007) me · cites it 2× “[2] [¶ 5] Cyr appealed that decision pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 409(1) (2006). After a hearing and an in camera review of the unredacted report, the Superior Court rejected the Department's argument that the redacted portions of the report were confidential pursuant to 20-A M.”
Show all 95 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 409(1) — 64 cases
Marcel Dubois v. Office of the Attorney General (2018) me “3 See 1 M.R.S. § 409. On motion filed by OAG, the court issued a scheduling order directing OAG to submit the contested documents under seal for the court’s in camera review and to file with the court, with a copy to Dubois and Fedder, an exceptions log identifying the documents…”
Dubois v. Office of the Attorney Gen. (2018) me “On motion filed by OAG, the court issued a scheduling order directing OAG to submit the contested documents under seal for the court's in camera review and to file with the court, with a copy to Dubois and Fedder, an exceptions log identifying the documents and the reasons they…”
Dubois v. Dep't of Agric., Conservation & Forestry (2018) me “This appeal was filed before September 1, 2017; therefore, the restyled Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply.”
Town of Burlington v. Hospital Administrative District No. 1 (2001) me “The first was brought by the Town, pursuant to Maine's Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S.A. § 409 (1989), seeking disclosure of certain records from the hospital parties.”
Marcel Dubois v. Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (2018) me “Informant Identity Privilege [¶14] We now turn to the merits of Dubois and Fedder’s argument that the court erred by declining to order production of records that DACF claimed 6 As is noted in our opinion in the companion case, see supra n.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 409(1)(2015) — 1 case
Doyle v. Town of Scarborough (2016) mesuperct
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 409(2) — 20 cases
Colby v. York County Commissioners (1982) me “Count I includes three claims: (1) denial of public investigation (1 M.R.S.A. § 409); (2) decision based on incompetent evidence (30 M.”
Lewiston Daily Sun v. School Administrative District No. 43 (1999) me “[¶ 11] The Freedom of Access Act provides a very narrow choice of remedies in circumstances where violation of its limits on executive sessions are found.”
Marxsen v. Board of Dir., MSAD No. 5 (1991) me “9 Official action taken at a public proceeding conducted in violation of the Act is voidable by the court pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. § 409(2). 10 Marxsen’s amended complaint alleges: [PJrior to the April 26, 1990 meeting held by the Defendant Board of Directors, one or more members…”
Underwood v. City of Presque Isle (1998) me
Baker's Table, Inc. v. City of Portland (2000) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 409(3) — 1 case
Campbell v. Town of MacHias (1995) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 409(4) — 8 cases
Human Rights Defense Center v. Maine County Commissioners Association Self-Funded RIsk Management Pool (2023) me
Human Rights Defense Center v. Maine County Commissioners Association Self Funded Risk Management Pool (2023) mesuperct
Human Rights Defense Center v. Maine County Commissioners Association Self Funded Risk Management Pool (2024) mesuperct
Gluic v. Secretary of State (2013) mesuperct
Heldmann v. Maine Dep't of Transp. (2013) mesuperct
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.