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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051 (2026)

Jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction to grant appropriate equitable relief in the following cases:  
1.  Foreclosure of mortgages.  For the foreclosure of mortgages of real and personal property and for redemption of estates mortgaged.  
2.  Forfeitures.  For relief from forfeiture of penalties to the State, from forfeitures in civil contracts and obligations and in recognizances in criminal cases.  
3.  Specific performance of written contracts.  To compel the specific performance of written contracts and to cancel and compel the discharge of written contracts, whether under seal or otherwise, when full performance or payment has been made to the contracting party.  
4.  Fraud, trust, accident or mistake.  For relief in cases of fraud, trust, accident or mistake.  
5.  Nuisance and waste.  In cases of nuisance and waste.  
6.  Trustees of railroads applying receipts.  In cases arising out of the law providing for the application of receipts and expenditures of railroads by trustees in possession under mortgage.  
7.  Partnerships.  In cases of partnership, and between partners or part owners of vessels and of other real and personal property to adjust all matters of the partnership and between such part owners, compel contribution, make final decrees and enforce their decrees by proper process in cases where all interested persons within the jurisdiction of the court are made parties.  
8.  Actions of interpleader.  Of actions of interpleader notwithstanding the plaintiff is a common carrier and as such has a lien for carriage or storage upon the property which is described in the complaint. No plaintiff in interpleader shall be denied relief by reason of any interest in the fund or other subject matter in dispute.  
9.  Property matters between husband and wife. 
[PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §8 (RP); PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §42 (AFF).]
10.  Wills.  To determine the construction of wills and whether an executor, not expressly appointed a trustee, becomes such from the provisions of a will; and in cases of doubt, the mode of executing a trust and the expediency of making changes and investments of property held in trust.  
11.  Redelivery of goods or chattels.  In civil actions for redelivery of goods or chattels taken or detained from the owner and secreted or withheld so that the same cannot be replevied, and in civil actions, by creditors, to reach and apply in payment of a debt any property, right, title or interest, legal or equitable, of a debtor or debtors, which cannot be come at to be attached on writ or taken on execution in a civil action, and any property or interest conveyed in fraud of creditors.  
12.  Pledging credit of public corporation for purpose not authorized by law.  When counties, cities, towns, school districts, School Administrative Districts, village or other public corporations, for a purpose not authorized by law, vote to pledge their credit or to raise money by taxation or to exempt property therefrom or to pay money from their treasury, or if any of their officers or agents attempt to pay out such money for such purpose, the court shall have jurisdiction on complaint filed by not less than 10 taxable inhabitants thereof, briefly setting forth the cause of complaint.  
13.  Equity jurisdiction.  And have full equity jurisdiction, according to the usage and practice of courts of equity, in all other cases where there is not a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law.  
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1995, c. 694, §D21 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF). PL 1999, c. 731, §ZZZ8 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 731, §ZZZ42 (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 61 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Buck v. Town of Yarmouth, 402 A.2d 860 (Me. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Buck v. Town of Yarmouth, 402 A.2d 860 (Me. 1979). · cites it 12× “First, in 1864 the predecessor *862 of present 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(12) (1964), the "ten taxpayers statute," gave standing to ten taxable inhabitants to seek relief against a specific type of public wrong, namely, the unauthorized or illegal expenditure of public funds.”
Common Cause v. State, 455 A.2d 1 (Me. 1983). · cites it 7× “Subsection 12 of 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051 does not in terms apply to taxpayer suits against the state and has never been construed to do so.”
Libby v. Lorrain, 430 A.2d 37 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “77, § 5(10), now 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(13) (1980). Courts of equity have traditionally exercised the power to partition real estate held by joint tenants.”
Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “[2] See also 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(9) (1980) (The Superior Court shall have equity jurisdiction "[t]o hear and determine property matters between wife and husband or husband and wife as provided in Title 19, section 166.”
Frederick B. Lincoln v. Harold Burbank II, 2016 ME 138 (Me. 2016). “Contrary to Burbank’s contention, partition by sale is available pursuant to the court’s equity jurisdiction, as preserved by 14 M.R.S. § 6051(13) (2015). See Libby v.”
Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978 (Me. 1981). “” Thus, the general equity powers of the Superior Court under 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(13) flow to the District Court by force of the “concurrent jurisdiction” provision of § 152.”
Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, 2009 ME 29 (Me. 2009). “§ 105 (2008); 14 M.R.S. § 6051 (2008). The court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute in this case is not contingent on whether the parties engaged in pre-litigation mediation, which is merely a condition precedent to filing suit created by the Conservation…”
Doughty v. Sullivan, 661 A.2d 1112 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “160, the jurisdiction of the Superior Court and the District Court to order equitable replevin is now provided in 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(11) (1980) and 4 M.R.S.”
Est. of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24 (Me. 2011). “As a court of general jurisdiction, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, such as the imposition of a constructive trust.”
Boyer v. Boyer, 1999 ME 128 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “Title 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051 reads, "The Superi- or Court shall have jurisdiction to grant appropriate equitable relief in the following *278 cases .”
Cohen v. Ketchum, 344 A.2d 387 (Me. 1975). · cites it 3× “For this reason, uncertainty has per *392 sisted whether fewer than ten resident taxpayers — or, indeed, one such named plaintiff — will have standing to sue, without special damage, to achieve preventive relief by invoking the “full equity powers” of Maine Courts as currently…”
Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co. v. Alexander, 411 A.2d 74 (Me. 1980). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(13). An injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law is an irreparable injury.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(10) — 6 cases
Fitzgerald v. Baxter State Park Auth., 385 A.2d 189 (Me. 1978).
Ziehl Ex Rel. Ziehl v. Maine Nat'l Bank, 383 A.2d 1364 (Me. 1978).
Normand v. Baxter State Park Auth., 509 A.2d 640 (Me. 1986).
Johnson v. South Blue Hill Cemetery Ass'n, 221 A.2d 280 (Me. 1966).
In Re Est. of Cassidy, 313 A.2d 435 (Me. 1973).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(11) — 3 cases
Doughty v. Sullivan, 661 A.2d 1112 (Me. 1995). “160, the jurisdiction of the Superior Court and the District Court to order equitable replevin is now provided in 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(11) (1980) and 4 M.R.S.”
Maples v. Compass Harbor Vill. (Me. Super. Ct 2022).
Atl. Reg'l Fed. Credit Union v. Baizley (Me. Super. Ct 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(12) — 4 cases
Buck v. Town of Yarmouth, 402 A.2d 860 (Me. 1979). “First, in 1864 the predecessor *862 of present 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(12) (1964), the "ten taxpayers statute," gave standing to ten taxable inhabitants to seek relief against a specific type of public wrong, namely, the unauthorized or illegal expenditure of public funds.”
Common Cause v. State, 455 A.2d 1 (Me. 1983). “Subsection 12 of 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051 does not in terms apply to taxpayer suits against the state and has never been construed to do so.”
Cohen v. Ketchum, 344 A.2d 387 (Me. 1975). “For this reason, uncertainty has per *392 sisted whether fewer than ten resident taxpayers — or, indeed, one such named plaintiff — will have standing to sue, without special damage, to achieve preventive relief by invoking the “full equity powers” of Maine Courts as currently…”
Pool Beach Ass'n v. City of Biddeford, 328 A.2d 131 (Me. 1974).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(13) — 18 cases
Buck v. Town of Yarmouth, 402 A.2d 860 (Me. 1979). “First, in 1864 the predecessor *862 of present 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(12) (1964), the "ten taxpayers statute," gave standing to ten taxable inhabitants to seek relief against a specific type of public wrong, namely, the unauthorized or illegal expenditure of public funds.”
Common Cause v. State, 455 A.2d 1 (Me. 1983). “Subsection 12 of 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051 does not in terms apply to taxpayer suits against the state and has never been construed to do so.”
Frederick B. Lincoln v. Harold Burbank II, 2016 ME 138 (Me. 2016). “Contrary to Burbank’s contention, partition by sale is available pursuant to the court’s equity jurisdiction, as preserved by 14 M.R.S. § 6051(13) (2015). See Libby v.”
Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978 (Me. 1981). “” Thus, the general equity powers of the Superior Court under 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(13) flow to the District Court by force of the “concurrent jurisdiction” provision of § 152.”
Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co. v. Alexander, 411 A.2d 74 (Me. 1980). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(13). An injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law is an irreparable injury.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(3) — 1 case
Dawson v. Lauderdale (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(4) — 5 cases
CRY v. Cote, 396 A.2d 1013 (Me. 1979).
Ruebsamen v. Maddocks, 340 A.2d 31 (Me. 1975).
Day v. McEwen, 385 A.2d 790 (Me. 1978).
Merrill v. Eastland Woolen Mills, Inc., 430 A.2d 557 (Me. 1981).
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust v. Warner (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(5) — 2 cases
Town of Kittery v. James M. Dineen, 2017 ME 53 (Me. 2017).
Town of Bar Harbor v. Evans, 499 A.2d 157 (Me. 1985).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(7) — 9 cases
Libby v. Lorrain, 430 A.2d 37 (Me. 1981). “77, § 5(10), now 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(13) (1980). Courts of equity have traditionally exercised the power to partition real estate held by joint tenants.”
Murphy v. Daley, 582 A.2d 1212 (Me. 1990).
Toralf H. Strand v. Sabrina Velandry, 2020 ME 38 (Me. 2020).
Us Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. for Speciality Underwriting & Residential Fin. Trust Mortg. Loan Asset-backed Certificates Series 2006-bc2 v. Thomes (D. Me. 2021).
Polistock v. Polistock (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6051(9) — 1 case
Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993). “[2] See also 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(9) (1980) (The Superior Court shall have equity jurisdiction "[t]o hear and determine property matters between wife and husband or husband and wife as provided in Title 19, section 166.”
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.