Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 13-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 13-A, § 1213 (2026)

Service of process on foreign corporation not authorized to do business in State

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1971, c. 439, §§1,27 (NEW). PL 2001, c. 640, §A1 (RP). PL 2001, c. 640, §B7 (AFF).
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 5 cases, 1979–2001 · leading case: Labbe v. Nissen Corp., 404 A.2d 564 (Me. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Labbe v. Nissen Corp., 404 A.2d 564 (Me. 1979). · cites it 8× “Alternatively, they assert that under Maine’s “doing business” statute, 13-A M.R.S.A. § 1213, the Defendant had submitted itself to the personal jurisdiction in Maine courts.”
Sandstrom on Behalf of Sandstrom v. Chemlawn Corp., 727 F. Supp. 676 (D. Me. 1989). · cites it 5× “If the foreign corporation is not authorized under Title 13-A to do business in Maine, then the act of doing business, by the express terms of 13-A M.R.S.A. § 1213, subjects it to the jurisdiction of Maine courts.”
Lorelei Corp. v. Cnty. of Guadalupe, 940 F.2d 717 (1st Cir. 1991). “The exhibits do not demonstrate that the defendants had any purposeful contacts with Lorelei in Maine (1) that were relevant to the events that gave rise to this action, or (2) that were "systematic and continuous” enough to establish a basis for the exercise of "general”…”
Forum Fin. Grp. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 173 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D. Me. 2001). “See 13-A M.R.S.A. § 1213. Although Harvard originally raised the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, Harvard does not now contest that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in Maine, 20 and has thereby waived this defense.”
Hewitt v. Arrow Farms, Inc., 528 A.2d 446 (Me. 1987). “2d 564, 569 (Me.1979). We conclude that the defendant s contacts with this slate, namely, the systematic and continuous transaction of business in Maine, are sufficient to permit the assertion of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant under Maine’s doing business statute…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 13-A, § 1213(1) — 1 case
Lorelei Corp. v. Cnty. of Guadalupe, 940 F.2d 717 (1st Cir. 1991). “The exhibits do not demonstrate that the defendants had any purposeful contacts with Lorelei in Maine (1) that were relevant to the events that gave rise to this action, or (2) that were "systematic and continuous” enough to establish a basis for the exercise of "general”…”
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.