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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6007 (2026)

Allegation that defendant's claim is frivolous

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1995, c. 448, §1 (RP).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1970–1995 · leading case: Bicknell Mfg. Co. v. Bennett, 417 A.2d 414 (Me. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bicknell Mfg. Co. v. Bennett, 417 A.2d 414 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “A provision in 14 M.R.S.A. § 6007 (1980) 6 states that the District Court Judge has power to determine, upon an allegation made by plaintiff, that defendant’s claim of title is “frivolous and intended for delay.”
Jones v. York, 444 A.2d 382 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “80D(d) and 14 M.R.S.A. § 6007, the plaintiffs filed a written allegation that the defendant’s claim of title was frivolous and intended for delay.”
Harrington v. Harrington, 269 A.2d 310 (Me. 1970). “14 M.R.S.A. § 6007 provides as follows: “The plaintiff may make a written allegation that the defendant’s claim of title is frivolous and intended for delay and the judge shall then examine the case so far as to ascertain the truth of such allegation, and if satisfied of the…”
Fraser v. Fraser, 598 A.2d 751 (Me. 1991). “After the District Court determined that Estelle's claim of title was not frivolous nor intended for delay, see 14 M.R.S.A. § 6007, the consolidated cases were transferred to the Superior Court.”
Carney v. Bergeron, 518 A.2d 717 (Me. 1986). “14 M.R.S.A. § 6007 (1980). . The record is not entirely clear with respect to when the foreclosure proceeding began or when the redemption period expired.”
Key Bank of Maine v. Estes, 669 A.2d 162 (Me. 1995). “) determined, pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A § 6007 (1980), that the defendants’ claim of title to the boat was not frivolous or intended for delay, and the case was transferred to the Superior Court.”
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.