Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 5935 (2026)

Change of award by arbitrators

✓ current as of May 2026

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

On application of a party or, if an application to the court is pending under sections 5937 to 5939, on submission to the arbitrators by the court under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in section 5939, subsection 1, paragraphs A and C or for the purpose of clarifying the award. The application shall be made within 20 days after delivery of the award to the applicant. Written notice thereof shall be given forthwith to the opposing party, stating he must serve his objections thereto, if any, within 10 days from the notice. The award so modified or corrected is subject to sections 5937 to 5939. [PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1967, c. 430 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., 395 A.2d 453 (Me. 1978). · cites it 4× “14 M.R.S.A. § 5935 provides: On application of a party or, if an application to the court is pending under sections 5937 to 5939, on submission to the arbitrators by the court under such conditions as the cpurt may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the…”

Lisbon Sch. Comm. v. Lisbon Educ. Ass'n, 438 A.2d 239 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “14 M.R.S.A. § 5935 (1980); see University of Alaska v.”

Maine State Employees Ass'n Local 1989 v. State Dep't of Corr., 593 A.2d 650 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “The State urged that the court had no basis to so modify the award, and should the court determine the award was not sufficiently clear and definite for enforcement, it should be referred to the arbitrator for clarification consistent with 14 M.R.S.A. § 5935. After a hearing,…”

Randall v. Conley, 2010 ME 68 (Me. 2010). “” 14 M.R.S. § 5935 (2009). Grounds for modification of an award include where “[t]here was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award .”

H.E. Sargent, Inc. v. Town of Millinocket, 478 A.2d 683 (Me. 1984). “Under the provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 5935, 5 “if an application to the court is pending under sections 5937 to 5939, on submission to the arbitrators under such conditions as the court may order, the arbitrators may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated in section…”

Morabito v. Nelsen (Me. Super. Ct 2009). “§5937, a court shall confirm an arbitration award unless, within a certain time, "grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award." Under 14 M.R.S.A. §5935, "if an application to the court is pending under sections 5937 to 5930/, on submission to the…”

Keaten v. Oreskovich (Me. Super. Ct 2013). “On January 10, 2013, the arbitrator dismissed MSEA's motion without prejudice because pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 5935, the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to clarify the Arbitration Award beyond 20 days after delivery of the Arbitration Award to the applicant.”

Amer Fed'n of State Cnty. & Mun. Employees Council 93 v. City of South Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2014). “That request was denied by the Board on the ground that AFSCME had not sought to clarify the award within the 20 day period specified in 14 M.R.S. § 5935, nor had it moved to modify or correct the award within the 90 days specified in 14 M.”

Ferk, Ltd. v. Turner Enter., Ltd., 43 Va. Cir. 238 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 1997). “The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied the attack on the arbitration award under 14 M.R.S.A. §5935 (analogous to § 8.01-581.”

Barr v. York Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “14 M.RS.A. § 5935. This case is therefore remanded to the panel to determine the amount of back pay owed to Barr.”

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.