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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3401 (2026)

Appeals structure and goals

✓ 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
1.  Structure.  Except as otherwise provided, appeals from the juvenile court are to the Supreme Judicial Court.  
[PL 2015, c. 100, §2 (AMD).]
2.  Goals of juvenile appellate structure.  The goals of the juvenile appellate structure are:  
A. To correct errors in the application and interpretation of law;   [PL 1979, c. 512, §8 (RPR).]
B. To insure substantial uniformity of treatment to persons in like situations; and   [PL 1979, c. 512, §8 (RPR).]
C. To provide for review of juvenile court decisions so that the legislatively defined purposes of the juvenile justice system as a whole are realized.   [PL 1979, c. 512, §8 (RPR).]
[PL 1979, c. 512, §8 (RPR).]
3.  No right to jury trial. 
[PL 1979, c. 512, §8 (RP).]
4.  Rules. 
[PL 1979, c. 512, §8 (RP).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 520, §1 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 664, §44 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 512, §8 (RPR). PL 2015, c. 100, §2 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me. 1979). · cites it 12× “" 15 M.R.S.A. § 3401(1)(B). On the *720 contrary, ample confirmation for that reading comes from the Juvenile Code context of that broad language and from prior and subsequent legislative enactments.”
State v. Gleason, 404 A.2d 573 (Me. 1979). · cites it 3× “McKusick & K. Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 73.”
State of Maine v. J.R., 2018 ME 117, 191 A.3d 1157. · cites it 2× “argues that the court abused its discretion and otherwise erred 3 when it determined that a disposition committing him to Long Creek was the least restrictive alternative, absent any explicit finding that his commitment was necessary to protect the public.”
State v. Michael L., 441 A.2d 684 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “[4] 15 M.R.S.A. § 3401(2)(B) provides: "[t]he goals of the juvenile appellate structure are .”
State v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112, 163 A.3d 827. “Nonetheless, the Juvenile Code expressly states that one of the “goals of the juvenile appellate structure” is to assure “substantial uniformity of treatment to persons in like situations,” 15 M.R.S. § 3401(2)(B) (2016), and that the Code’s provisions “shall be liberally…”
State v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112, 163 A.3d 827. “Nonetheless, the Juvenile Code expressly states that one of the “goals of the juvenile appellate structure” is to assure “substantial uniformity of treatment to persons in like situations,” 15 M.R.S. § 3401(2)(B) (2016), and that the Code’s provisions “shall be liberally…”
State of Maine v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112, 163 A.3d 827. “Nonetheless, the Juvenile Code expressly states that one of the “goals of the juvenile appellate structure” is to assure “substantial uniformity of treatment to persons in like situations,” 15 M.R.S. § 3401(2)(B) (2016), and that the Code’s provisions “shall be liberally…”
State of Maine v. Timothy Silva, 2021 ME 15, 247 A.3d 330. “[¶5] After entering an adjudication of a juvenile offense, the Juvenile Court is required to “hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition 3 In a related docket before the trial court (Kennebec County, Dow, J.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3401(1)(B): 1 case
State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me. 1979). “" 15 M.R.S.A. § 3401(1)(B). On the *720 contrary, ample confirmation for that reading comes from the Juvenile Code context of that broad language and from prior and subsequent legislative enactments.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3401(1)(C): 1 case
State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me. 1979). “" 15 M.R.S.A. § 3401(1)(B). On the *720 contrary, ample confirmation for that reading comes from the Juvenile Code context of that broad language and from prior and subsequent legislative enactments.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3401(2): 2 cases
State of Maine v. J.R., 2018 ME 117, 191 A.3d 1157. “argues that the court abused its discretion and otherwise erred 3 when it determined that a disposition committing him to Long Creek was the least restrictive alternative, absent any explicit finding that his commitment was necessary to protect the public.”
State of Maine v. Timothy Silva, 2021 ME 15, 247 A.3d 330. “[¶5] After entering an adjudication of a juvenile offense, the Juvenile Court is required to “hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition 3 In a related docket before the trial court (Kennebec County, Dow, J.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3401(2)(B): 4 cases
State v. Michael L., 441 A.2d 684 (Me. 1982). “[4] 15 M.R.S.A. § 3401(2)(B) provides: "[t]he goals of the juvenile appellate structure are .”
State v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112, 163 A.3d 827. “Nonetheless, the Juvenile Code expressly states that one of the “goals of the juvenile appellate structure” is to assure “substantial uniformity of treatment to persons in like situations,” 15 M.R.S. § 3401(2)(B) (2016), and that the Code’s provisions “shall be liberally…”
State v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112, 163 A.3d 827. “Nonetheless, the Juvenile Code expressly states that one of the “goals of the juvenile appellate structure” is to assure “substantial uniformity of treatment to persons in like situations,” 15 M.R.S. § 3401(2)(B) (2016), and that the Code’s provisions “shall be liberally…”
State of Maine v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112, 163 A.3d 827. “Nonetheless, the Juvenile Code expressly states that one of the “goals of the juvenile appellate structure” is to assure “substantial uniformity of treatment to persons in like situations,” 15 M.R.S. § 3401(2)(B) (2016), and that the Code’s provisions “shall be liberally…”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3401(4): 1 case
State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.2d 715 (Me. 1979). “" 15 M.R.S.A. § 3401(1)(B). On the *720 contrary, ample confirmation for that reading comes from the Juvenile Code context of that broad language and from prior and subsequent legislative enactments.”
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.