Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 15
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 2611 (2026)

Juvenile court's powers of disposition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 195, §1 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 391, §1 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 544, §42 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 192, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 542 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 121, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 528, §3 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 622, §59 (AMD). P&SL 1973, c. 53 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 522, §1 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 625, §85 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 625, §289 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 62, §3 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 538, §§2-7 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 756, §§2-4 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 520, §17 (RP).
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 12 cases, 1966–1978 · leading case: State v. Knowles, 371 A.2d 624 (Me. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Knowles, 371 A.2d 624 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “On January 7, 1975 the juvenile court Judge heard evidence in connection with the petition, and, as one alternative of disposition available to him under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611, 3 he ordered defendant held for action by the grand jury.”
Boone Ex Rel. Ferry v. Danforth, 463 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. 1971). · cites it 2× “[2] In Cases 56445 and 56446 the minors, originally committed to the State Training School for Boys, were transferred by administrative order to the Missouri Department of Corrections which department then ordered them detained in the State Penitentiary.”
Hamner v. State, 223 A.2d 532 (Me. 1966). “The Judge of the juvenile court sentenced him to the Reformatory for Men under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611, (4 A). On June 7, 1964, while undergoing imprisonment at that institution pursuant to said judgment of sentence, Hamner escaped, but was promptly recaptured.”
State v. Small, 381 A.2d 1130 (Me. 1978). “It is, or course, clear that if the defendant had not waived indictment but had persisted in his challenge on the grounds that the “bind-over” provision of the juvenile statute, 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611(3), as then enacted, was unconstitutional, our recent opinion in State v.”
Shone v. State of Maine, 286 F. Supp. 511 (D. Me. 1968). · cites it 2× “See 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611 (4A) (1964). But see United States ex rel.”
State v. Alley, 385 A.2d 1175 (Me. 1978). “” 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611(3). . Neither the State nor the appellant has been able to cite any authority otherwise, nor has our independent research disclosed any.”
State v. L D, 320 A.2d 885 (Me. 1974). “[6] The rehabilitative philosophy underlying juvenile commitments has been subject to sharp debate by social scientists and lawyers alike.”
State v. Corliss, 379 A.2d 998 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “Jones, supra, renders facially unconstitutional the statute under which he was adjudicated, 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611 (1964) (amended 1975).”
State v. L, 347 A.2d 588 (Me. 1975). · cites it 5× “The matter must be remanded to the Superior Court for correction of his judgment of guilt and for appropriate disposition of the matter under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611, as amended. See, Weeks v.”
State v. L, 347 A.2d 588 (Me. 1975). · cites it 5× “The matter must be remanded to the Superior Court for correction of his judgment of guilt and for appropriate disposition of the matter under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611, as amended. See, Weeks v.”
State v. L D, 320 A.2d 885 (Me. 1974). “The rehabilitative philosophy underlying juvenile commitments has been subject to sharp debate by social scientists and lawyers alike.”
State v. L D, 320 A.2d 885 (Me. 1974). “The rehabilitative philosophy underlying juvenile commitments has been subject to sharp debate by social scientists and lawyers alike.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 2611(3) — 4 cases
State v. Small, 381 A.2d 1130 (Me. 1978). “It is, or course, clear that if the defendant had not waived indictment but had persisted in his challenge on the grounds that the “bind-over” provision of the juvenile statute, 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611(3), as then enacted, was unconstitutional, our recent opinion in State v.”
State v. Alley, 385 A.2d 1175 (Me. 1978). “” 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611(3). . Neither the State nor the appellant has been able to cite any authority otherwise, nor has our independent research disclosed any.”
State v. L, 347 A.2d 588 (Me. 1975). “The matter must be remanded to the Superior Court for correction of his judgment of guilt and for appropriate disposition of the matter under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611, as amended. See, Weeks v.”
State v. L, 347 A.2d 588 (Me. 1975). “The matter must be remanded to the Superior Court for correction of his judgment of guilt and for appropriate disposition of the matter under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611, as amended. See, Weeks v.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 2611(4) — 3 cases
State v. L D, 320 A.2d 885 (Me. 1974). “[6] The rehabilitative philosophy underlying juvenile commitments has been subject to sharp debate by social scientists and lawyers alike.”
State v. L D, 320 A.2d 885 (Me. 1974). “The rehabilitative philosophy underlying juvenile commitments has been subject to sharp debate by social scientists and lawyers alike.”
State v. L D, 320 A.2d 885 (Me. 1974). “The rehabilitative philosophy underlying juvenile commitments has been subject to sharp debate by social scientists and lawyers alike.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 2611(4)(C) — 1 case
State v. Corliss, 379 A.2d 998 (Me. 1977). “Jones, supra, renders facially unconstitutional the statute under which he was adjudicated, 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611 (1964) (amended 1975).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 2611(4B) — 1 case
Shone v. State of Maine, 286 F. Supp. 511 (D. Me. 1968). “See 15 M.R.S.A. § 2611 (4A) (1964). But see United States ex rel.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 2611(5) — 1 case
Boone Ex Rel. Ferry v. Danforth, 463 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. 1971). “[2] In Cases 56445 and 56446 the minors, originally committed to the State Training School for Boys, were transferred by administrative order to the Missouri Department of Corrections which department then ordered them detained in the State Penitentiary.”
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.