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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5301 (2026)

Concurrent jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Supreme Judicial Court and the Superior Court shall have and exercise concurrent original jurisdiction in proceedings in habeas corpus, prohibition, error, mandamus, quo warranto and certiorari.   [PL 1967, c. 441, §6 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 441, §6 (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 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: York Register of Prob. v. York Cnty. Prob. Court, 847 A.2d 395 (Me. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
York Register of Prob. v. York Cnty. Prob. Court, 847 A.2d 395 (Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “[¶ 14] Title 14 M.R.S.A. § 5301 (2003) confers concurrent jurisdiction “in proceedings in the nature of prohibition and mandamus” on the Supreme Judicial Court and the Superior Court.”
Dep't of Corr. v. Superior Court, 622 A.2d 1131 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “The Department’s action was brought pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5301 (1980) and 4 M.R.S.A. § 7 (1989).”
Fletcher v. Feeney, 400 A.2d 1084 (Me. 1979). “The same consideration applies to the action in the nature of certiorari, 14 M.R.S.A. § 5301, considered in Toulouse ; the administrative appeal process must first be exhausted.”
In re Maine Today Media, Inc. State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr., 2013 ME 12 (Me. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S. § 5301 (2012); M.R. Civ. P. 81(c); M.”
Fredette v. State, 428 A.2d 395 (Me. 1981). “Invoking the traditional “great writ of liberty”, habeas corpus, by a petition addressed to the concurrent jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Court (14 M.R.S.A. § 5301), petitioner Nancy A. Fredette alleged that she had been unlawfully restrained of her liberty because the…”
Casco N. Bank, N.A. v. Bd. of Trs. of Van Buren Hosp. Dist., 601 A.2d 1085 (Me. 1992). “1987); 14 M.R.S.A. § 5301 (1980). Rule 80B does not, however, provide an independent basis of jurisdiction; a court may hear an 80B action only if it is authorized “by statute or otherwise authorized by law_” M.”
Dunston v. Town of York, 590 A.2d 526 (Me. 1991). “Here, the relief sought of securing a court order to compel the Town Selectmen to place before the townspeople an article to rescind the 1989 vote or to call a special town meeting to consider the matter was in the nature of an action for mandamus.”
Patricia M. Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Cmty. Sch. Dist., 2026 ME 11 (Me. 2026). · cites it 2× “When, however, the law requires a judicial determination to be made, such as the decision of a question of fact, or the exercise of judgment in deciding whether the act should be done or not, the 6 duty is regarded as judicial and mandamus will not lie to compel performance.”
Friends of Mitchell Field v. Town of Harpswell (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “See 14 M.R.S. § 5301. 3 154. The Friends contend that the Town is required to call a Town meeting and vote under the Maine statute allowing voters to petition a notary to call a town meeting when town selectmen unreasonably reject a petition of the voters.”
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.