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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8101 (2026)

Title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Maine Tort Claims Act."   [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 2, §§2,5 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 591, §6 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 68, §5 (AMD).
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 43 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seth T. Carey v. Bd. of Overseers of the Bar, 2018 ME 119 (Me. 2018). “[¶ 21] The Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. §§ 8101 - 8118, provides broadly that "[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, all governmental entities shall be immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages.”
McLain v. Milligan, 847 F. Supp. 970 (D. Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101 et seq. Section 8111(1)(C) of the Act provides immunity to employees of governmental entities for “[t]he performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.”
Jenness v. Nickerson, 637 A.2d 1152 (Me. 1994). “(“MCRA”) and the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. (“MTCA”). All claims against the State were dismissed by the Superior Court (Mead, J.”
Martel v. Inhabitants of Town of Old Orchard, 404 A.2d 994 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. (Supp.1978). [2] 14 M.”
Carey Ex Rel. Carey v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. 17, 754 F. Supp. 906 (D. Me. 1990). “14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101 et seq. Defendants argue on the grounds of these statutory immunities that Plaintiffs’ state tort claims should be dismissed.”
Brann v. State, 424 A.2d 699 (Me. 1981). “We do not decide, where the state has granted general consent to suit by adoption of a comprehensive tort claims statute such as the Maine Tort Claims Act (14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101 et seq.), whether the assertion that a particular tort claim is not within the scope of such a statute…”
Mueller v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 538 A.2d 294 (Me. 1988). “The statute is specifically designated as the “Maine Tort Claims Act,” see 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. (1980), and the Act’s elimination of certain governmental immunity is limited to “negligent acts or omissions causing property damage, bodily injury or death.”
Steeves v. City of Rockland, 600 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D. Me. 2009). “Count II: that the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. (“MTCA”), does not provide immunity to Smith for his actions, which were made in bad faith and exceeded his discretionary authority.”
PARLIN v. Cumberland Cnty., 659 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “12 All Defendants move for summary judgment based on immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”), 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. 13 As to the County and Sheriff Dion in his official capacity, Plaintiffs negligence claim is barred by the MTCA because the County’s…”
Petillo v. City of Portland, 657 A.2d 325 (Me. 1995). “Plaintiff argues that the court erred in finding the City immune from liability pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. (1980), (the Act).”
Dimmitt v. Ockenfels, 220 F.R.D. 116 (D. Me. 2004). “These defendants contend that they are immune from such common law claims under the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. Rockland Motion at 13.”
Learnard v. Inhabitants of Town of Van Buren, 164 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D. Me. 2001). “Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss all of these common law state tort claims for failure to give them adequate notice as mandated by the Maine Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”), 14 M.R.S.A. § 8101 et seq. The MTCA provides explicit requirements for a claimant to bring tort…”
Show all 43 citing cases →
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.