Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 1851 (2026)

Objections; appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
For all purposes for which an exception has heretofore been necessary in civil cases, it is sufficient that a party, at the time the order or ruling of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action that the party desires the court to take or the party's objection to the action of the court and the grounds for the objection. If a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice that party. In any civil case any party aggrieved by any judgment, ruling or order may appeal therefrom to the law court. The time for taking the appeal and the manner and any conditions for the taking of the appeal are as the Supreme Judicial Court provides by rule.   [PL 2001, c. 17, §2 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2001, c. 17, §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 176 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Coastal Ventures v. Alsham Plaza, LLC, 2010 ME 63 (Me. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coastal Ventures v. Alsham Plaza, LLC, 2010 ME 63 (Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “2 and 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2009) on July 1, 2009. Coastal cross-appealed pursuant to M.”
Drilling & Blasting Rock Specialists, Inc. v. Paul Rheaume, 2016 ME 131 (Me. 2016). “See 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2015).- III. DISCUSSION [¶ 13] The question presented is whether the trial court erred in entering summary judgment based on Rheaume’s statute of limitations defense to DBRS’s claims that Rheaume should be held personally liable for intentionally and…”
Cunningham v. Kittery Plan. Bd., 400 A.2d 1070 (Me. 1979). · cites it 3× “John Davidson Associates filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging (1) that the plaintiffs were not parties “aggrieved” by the judgment of the Superior Court within the meaning of 14 M.R.S.A. § 1851, and that they had no standing to pursue the appeal; and, (2) that the…”
Heidi Pushard v. Bank of Am. N.A., 2017 ME 230 (Me. 2017). “14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2016); M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3) (Tower 2016).”
Susan C. Harvey v. Addison H. Furrow Jr., 2014 ME 149 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “Furrow and Lane timely appealed, and Harvey cross-appealed, pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2013) and M.R. App. P. 2.”
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Cope, 158 A.3d 931 (Me. 2017). “See 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2016); M.R. App. P. 2. II.”
Cyr v. Michaud, 454 A.2d 1376 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “Title 14 M.R.S.A. § 1851 (1980) provides that only parties “aggrieved” by judgments may appeal.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Patricia W. Deschaine, 2017 ME 190 (Me. 2017). “§ 6206 (2016) (“If it appears that nothing is due on the mortgage, judgment shall be rendered for the defendant and for his costs, and he shall hold the land discharged of the mortgage.”
York Cnty. v. Propertyinfo Corp., 200 A.3d 803 (Me. 2019). “PropertyInfo filed a reply memorandum and reply statement of material facts. [¶13] The court entered a summary judgment in favor of PropertyInfo based on its conclusion that the statute of limitations had expired on each of York County's claims.”
Sevigny v. Home Builders Ass'n of Maine, Inc., 429 A.2d 197 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “At the outset, we must decide whether, because of adverse collateral consequences of adjudications underlying the Superior Court judgment, defendant is “aggrieved” by that judgment in its favor, within the meaning of the provision of 14 M.R.S.A. § 1851 (1980) reading: In any…”
In Re the Pittston Co. Oil Refinery & Marine Terminal at Eastport, 375 A.2d 530 (Me. 1977). · cites it 5× “" Appeals from Superior Court decisions are governed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 1851 which states that "any party aggrieved .”
Kimberly B. Scott v. Fall Line Condo. Ass'n, 2019 ME 50 (Me. 2019). “4 judgment, the court declared “all rules and regulations putatively established by the Association are void, pending a vote to garner the approval of a majority in interest of the unit owners at Fall Line” after determining, as a matter of law, that “none of the extant rules…”
Show all 176 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.