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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 7552-A (2026)

Land on which 10 acres or more of wood is to be cut

✓ 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
Any person who authorizes the cutting of timber or wood on the person's own property, when the cutting involves an area of 10 or more acres, shall clearly mark any property lines that are within 200 feet of the area to be cut. If any such person fails to clearly mark such property lines and if the person or persons who are authorized to cut then cut timber or wood on abutting land without the authorization of the owner of that land, the person who failed to mark the person's property lines is liable in a civil action, in double damages, to that owner of the abutting land. These damages are in addition to any damages to which the owner of the abutting land may be entitled under section 7552.   [PL 1995, c. 450, §3 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 253 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 313, §2 (RPR). PL 1995, c. 450, §3 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1986–2006 · leading case: Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47, 870 A.2d 1208.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stockly v. Doil, 2005 ME 47, 870 A.2d 1208. · cites it 9× “The Stocklys argue that the court erred by: (1) determining that the stumpage value of the lost trees was the proper measure of damages pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552-A; and (2) reducing Doil’s responsibility for damages pursuant to 14 M.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Goodwin, 950 F. Supp. 24 (D. Me. 1996). · cites it 4× “§§ 7552 are not covered under the “Property Damage” provisions of the comprehensive general liability insurance policies Plaintiffs executed with Goodwin (Counts I, II, and III); (2) the double damages Goodwin owes Henderson pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552-A are in fact punitive…”
Fuschetti v. Murray, 2006 ME 100, 903 A.2d 848. · cites it 2× “In Stockly , the trial court found the defendant liable pursuant to section 7552 as well as 14 M.R.S. § 7552-A (2005), 4 but refused to consider evidence of the plaintiffs cleanup costs as an element of damages.”
Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 ME 34, 896 A.2d 923. “The Dionnes abandoned their claims for adverse possession and for damages under 14 M.R.S. § 7552-A, and in November 2004, the case went to trial before a jury on the section 7552 claim and the third-party complaint.”
Fraser v. Barton, 628 A.2d 146 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “14 M.R.S.A. § 7552-A (1980); 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552 (Supp.”
Leadbetter v. Morse, 510 A.2d 524 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “1985-1986) and -double damages against Morse pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552-A (1980). Morse appeals the judgment entered against him, and Twitched appeals from the denial of a cross-claim he filed against Morse seeking indemnification to the extent he was found liable to the…”
Stockly v. Doil, No. CUMcv-02-453 (Me. Super. Ct Apr. 30, 2004). · cites it 6× “§ 7552 (Count I); a violation of 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552-A, against the defendant Anne M.”
Wallace v. Moore, No. WALre-99-011 (Me. Super. Ct June 12, 2000). · cites it 2× “Likewise, there is no evidence that Doherty and Moore “acted in concert” in causing the trespass.”
Fuschetti v. Murray, No. CUMcv-04-032 (Me. Super. Ct Apr. 8, 2005). “Although Stockly held that restoration costs are available under a companion statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552-A, the court adheres to its ruling that restoration costs are not recoverable under § 7552.”
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.