Maine Revised Statutes
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 752 (2026)
Six years
✓ 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
All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards, except actions on a judgment or decree of any court of record of the United States, or of any state, or of a justice of the peace in this State, and except as otherwise specially provided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 282
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90, 209 A.3d 116.
Packgen, Inc. v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 2019 ME 90, 209 A.3d 116. “[¶1] In Maine, with exceptions not applicable to this appeal, the Legislature has spoken-a civil action against an attorney for professional negligence, malpractice, or breach of contract for legal services "shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues,"…”
Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2005 ME 57, 871 A.2d 1208. “Statute of Limitations [¶ 13] The Diocese contends that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (2003) applies to this case.”
McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 ME 69, 977 A.2d 420. “" 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2008). [¶ 11] McKinnon's compliance with Maine's six-year statute of limitations therefore depends on when his cause of action accrued.”
McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463 (Me. 1994). “The court ruled that McAfee's claims are barred by the two-year limitations period for assault and battery, 14 M.”
Myrick v. James, 444 A.2d 987 (Me. 1982). “This provision removed such actions from the purview of the general six year limitations statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 752, and situated them in a position similar to malpractice actions against physicians, as provided in section 753.”
Saunders v. Tisher, 2006 ME 94, 902 A.2d 830. “With the three-year statute of limitations under the MHSA inapplicable, Saunders's claim is subject to the six-year statute of limitations pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 752 (2005). Under section 752, his action is timely.”
In re George Parsons 1907 Trust, 2017 ME 188, 170 A.3d 215. “[¶15] Maxwell argues that Gourevitch’s claim for a declaratory judgment, commenced in 2014, is barred by 14 M.R.S. § 752, which provides that “civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards.”
Nevin v. Union Trust Co., 1999 ME 47, 726 A.2d 694. “Claims against all defendants were largely barred by the statutes of limitation, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 752, 753-A (1980 & Supp. 1998), as accruing more than six years prior to February 1, 1995.”
Anderson v. Neal, 428 A.2d 1189 (Me. 1981). “14 M.R.S.A. § 752. We vacate the judgment.”
Johanson v. Dunnington, 2001 ME 169, 785 A.2d 1244. “The Superior Court granted that motion, holding that the Johansons’s breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of severe emotional distress claims were barred by Maine’s statute of limitations, 14 M.”
Chiapetta v. Clark Assocs., 521 A.2d 697 (Me. 1987). “The plaintiff, Salvador Chiapetta, appeals a judgment entered in the Superior Court, Cumberland County, dismissing his complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations imposed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980). We agree with the Superior…”
Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, 770 A.2d 592. “Similarly, plaintiffs’ federal takings claim, pursuant to § 1983, has been extinguished by the expiration period prescribed under 14 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1980). See McKenney v.”
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.